Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

When meta-analyses get it wrong: response to ‘treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’

  • James Lock (a1), Helena Chmura Kraemer (a1), Booil Jo (a1) and Jennifer Couturier (a2)
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      When meta-analyses get it wrong: response to ‘treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      When meta-analyses get it wrong: response to ‘treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      When meta-analyses get it wrong: response to ‘treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. To view the full text please use the links above to select your preferred format.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: James Lock, E-mail: jimlock@stanford.edu

References

Hide All
Agras, WS, Lock, J, Brandt, H, Bryson, SW, Dodge, E, Halmi, KA, Jo, B, Johnson, C, Kaye, W, Wilfley, D and Woodside, B (2014) Comparison of 2 family therapies for adolescent anorexia nervosa: a randomized parallel trial. JAMA Psychiatry 72, 12791286.
Hay, P, Touyz, S and Sud, R (2012) Treatment for severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: a review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 46, 11361144.
Ioannidis, J (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Millbank Quarterly 94, 485514.
Kraemer, H (2017) ‘Evidence’-based medicine in eating disorders research: the problem of ‘confetti p values’. International Journal of Eating Disorders 50, 307311.
Kraemer, H and Blasey, CLA (2015) How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research, 2nd Edn. Los Angeles, London; CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Kraemer, H and Kupfer, D (2006) Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biological Psychiatry 58, 990996.
Kraemer, H and Thienemann, S (1987) How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kraemer, H, Yesavage, J, Gardner, C and Brooks, J (1998) Advantages of excluding underpowered studies in meta-analysis: inclusionist versus exclusionist viewpoints. Psychological Methods 3, 2331.
Lock, J (2015) An update on evidence based psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents with eating disorders. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 44, 707721.
Lock, J, Le Grange, D, Agras, WS, Moye, A, Bryson, S and Jo, B (2010) A randomized clinical trial comparing family based treatment to adolescent focused individual therapy for adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Archives of General Psychiatry 67, 10251032.
Murray, SB, Quintana, DS, Loeb, KL, Griffiths, S and Le Grange, D (2018) Treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychological Medicine. doi: 10.1017/s0033291718002088 [Epub ahead of print].
Treasure, J and Russell, G (2011) The case for early intervention in anorexia nervosa: theoretical exploration of maintaining factors. British Journal of Psychiatry 199, 57.
Watson, H and Bulik, C (2013) Update on the treatment of anorexia nervosa: review of clinical trials, practice guidelines and emerging interventions. Psychological Medicine 43, 24772500.

When meta-analyses get it wrong: response to ‘treatment outcomes for anorexia nervosa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’

  • James Lock (a1), Helena Chmura Kraemer (a1), Booil Jo (a1) and Jennifer Couturier (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed