Hay P J, Bacaltchuk J
Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5001.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD000562. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000562.
The review aims to evaluate the psychotherapeutic treatments for those with binge eating syndromes, that have been tested in randomised controlled trials. Specifically, cognitive-behavioural(CBT) therapy is compared with waiting list or a non-treatment group, any other psychotherapy, CBT in a "pure self-help" form and CBT augmented by exposure and response therapy. As well, the reveiw aims to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of other psychotherapies when compared to a no treatment control group and to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of other psychotherapies when compared to a 'placebo' therapy.
Handsearch of The International Journal of Eating Disorders since its first issue; database searches of MEDLINE, EXTRAMED, EMBASE, PSYCHLIT, CURRENT CONTENTS, LILACS, SCISEARCH, The Cochrane Collaboration Controlled Trials Register and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Database of Trials; citation list searching and personal approaches to authors communication are used.
All studies that have tested any form of psychotherapy for adult patients with non-purging bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and/or EDNOS of a bulimic type, and which have applied a randomised controlled and standardized outcome methodology, are sought for the purpose of this review.
Data are entered into a spreadsheet programme, and into the REVMAN analysis program. Relative risk analyses are conducted of binary outcome data. The relative risk analysis is used rather than the odds ratio as the outcome measures proposed are not measuring a rare event (such as death) and the total number of studies is small. Standardized mean difference analyses are conducted of continuous variable outcome data, as the continuous outcome measures are not consistent across studies. Sensitivity analyses are conducted of a number of measures of trial quality. Data were not reported in such a way to do subgroup analyses, but the effect of treatment on depressive symptoms, psychosocial and/or interpersonal functioning, general psychiatric symptoms and weight is examined where possible. Chi-square tests for homogeneity are done, @ 5% level of significance, using a fixed effects model. Funnel plots to evaluate presence of publication bias are completed and available in a text file upon request.
To date, 1360 trials have been generated by searching and 58 trials have been evaluated in detail. Because of a relatively high number of exclusions (n=12) the trial inclusion criteria were broadened to include those with non-blinded outcome assessment, providing 20 trials for analyses. Because of incomplete published and available data, at best up to 10 studies had data available for any single analysis. The maximum number of total patients included in a single analysis is 396. The majority of studies (18) evaluate patients with bulimia nervosa of a purging type. CBT is superior to waiting list controls with respect to abstinence from binge eating (RR 0.64 CI.53-.78). CBT is not superior to other psychotherapies with respect to abstinence from binge eating (RR.79, CI.54-1.17). CBT in a full or less intensive form is not significantly superior to CBT in a pure self-help form. Augmentation of CBT with exposure therapy is not more effective than CBT alone. NonCBT-psychotherapies also have significantly greater abstinence rates in comparisons with wait-list controls, but there is a paucity of such studies (RR 0.67, CI.56-.81, n=3 studies). Funnel plots suggest a bias towards publication of positive outcome studies only.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is small body of evidence for the efficacy of cognitive-behaviour therapy in bulimia nervosa and similar syndromes, but the quality of trials is very variable (e.g. the majority, 12, are not blinded) and sample sizes are often very small. More trials are needed, particularly for binge eating disorder and other EDNOS syndromes, and evalu
本综述旨在评估在随机对照试验中测试过的针对暴饮暴食综合征患者的心理治疗方法。具体而言,将认知行为疗法(CBT)与等待名单或非治疗组、任何其他心理疗法、“纯自助”形式的CBT以及通过暴露和反应疗法增强的CBT进行比较。此外,本综述旨在评估与无治疗对照组相比其他心理疗法疗效的证据,以及与“安慰剂”疗法相比其他心理疗法疗效的证据。
自《国际进食障碍杂志》创刊以来进行手工检索;对MEDLINE、EXTRAMED、EMBASE、PSYCHLIT、《现刊目次》、LILACS、SCISEARCH、Cochrane协作网对照试验注册库以及Cochrane抑郁、焦虑和神经症试验组数据库进行数据库检索;使用文献列表检索和与作者沟通的个人途径。
本综述旨在寻找所有对非清除型神经性贪食症、暴饮暴食症和/或贪食型未特定的进食障碍(EDNOS)成年患者测试过任何形式心理疗法,并应用了随机对照和标准化结局方法的研究。
数据录入电子表格程序以及REVMAN分析程序。对二元结局数据进行相对危险度分析。采用相对危险度分析而非比值比,因为所提出的结局指标并非测量罕见事件(如死亡)且研究总数较少。对连续变量结局数据进行标准化均数差分析,因为各研究中的连续结局指标不一致。对多项试验质量指标进行敏感性分析。数据未以可进行亚组分析的方式报告,但在可能的情况下检查治疗对抑郁症状、心理社会和/或人际功能、一般精神症状及体重的影响。使用固定效应模型进行齐性卡方检验,显著性水平为5%。完成用于评估发表偏倚存在情况的漏斗图,如有需要可在文本文件中获取。
截至目前,通过检索共产生1360项试验,其中58项试验得到详细评估。由于排除数量相对较多(n = 12),试验纳入标准放宽至包括那些结局评估未设盲的研究,从而有20项试验可供分析。由于发表数据和可用数据不完整,最多只有10项研究有可用于任何单一分析的数据。单一分析中纳入的患者总数最多为396例。大多数研究(18项)评估的是清除型神经性贪食症患者。在避免暴饮暴食方面,CBT优于等待名单对照组(相对危险度0.64,可信区间0.53 - 0.78)。在避免暴饮暴食方面,CBT并不优于其他心理疗法(相对危险度0.79,可信区间0.54 - 1.17)。全强度或较低强度形式的CBT并不显著优于纯自助形式的CBT。CBT联合暴露疗法并不比单独的CBT更有效。与等待名单对照组相比,非CBT心理疗法的戒断率也显著更高,但此类研究较少(相对危险度0.67,可信区间0.56 - 0.81,n = 3项研究)。漏斗图表明存在仅发表阳性结局研究的偏倚。
有少量证据支持认知行为疗法在神经性贪食症及类似综合征中的疗效,但试验质量差异很大(例如,大多数,12项,未设盲)且样本量通常很小。需要更多试验,特别是针对暴饮暴食症和其他未特定的进食障碍综合征的试验,以及评估……