Polnay A, James V A W, Hodges L, Murray G D, Munro C, Lawrie S M
Edinburgh Psychotherapy Department, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh,UK.
Scottish Mental Health Research Network,Kennedy Tower, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh,UK.
Psychol Med. 2014 Aug;44(11):2241-54. doi: 10.1017/S0033291713002791. Epub 2013 Nov 15.
Approximately 25% of people with bulimia nervosa (BN) who undertake therapy are treated in groups. National guidelines do not discriminate between group and individual therapy, yet each has potential advantages and disadvantages and it is unclear how their effects compare. We therefore evaluated how group therapy for BN compares with individual therapy, no treatment, or other therapies, in terms of remission from binges and binge frequency.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of group therapies for BN, following standard guidelines.
A total of 10 studies were included. Studies were generally small with unclear risk of bias. There was low-quality evidence of a clinically relevant advantage for group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) over no treatment at therapy end. Remission was more likely with group CBT versus no treatment [relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.96]. Mean weekly binges were lower with group CBT versus no treatment (2.9 v. 6.9, standardized mean difference = -0.56, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.15). One study provided low-quality evidence that group CBT was inferior compared with individual CBT to a clinically relevant degree for remission at therapy end (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50); there was insufficient evidence regarding frequency of binges.
Conclusions could only be reached for CBT. Low-quality evidence suggests that group CBT is effective compared with no treatment, but there was insufficient or very limited evidence about how group and individual CBT compared. The risk of bias and imprecise estimates of effect invite further research to refine and increase confidence in these findings.
接受治疗的神经性贪食症(BN)患者中约25%接受团体治疗。国家指南并未区分团体治疗和个体治疗,但每种治疗都有潜在的优缺点,且它们的效果如何比较尚不清楚。因此,我们评估了BN的团体治疗与个体治疗、不治疗或其他治疗相比,在暴饮暴食缓解和暴饮暴食频率方面的情况。
我们按照标准指南对BN团体治疗的随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。
共纳入10项研究。研究规模一般较小,偏倚风险不明确。有低质量证据表明,团体认知行为疗法(CBT)在治疗结束时比不治疗具有临床相关优势。与不治疗相比,团体CBT更有可能实现缓解[相对风险(RR)0.77,95%置信区间(CI)0.62 - 0.96]。与不治疗相比,团体CBT的平均每周暴饮暴食次数更低(2.9对6.9,标准化平均差 = -0.56,95%CI -0.96至 -0.15)。一项研究提供了低质量证据,表明团体CBT在治疗结束时与个体CBT相比在缓解方面临床相关程度较差(RR 1.24,95%CI 1.03 - 1.50);关于暴饮暴食频率的证据不足。
仅能对CBT得出结论。低质量证据表明,团体CBT与不治疗相比是有效的,但关于团体CBT和个体CBT如何比较的证据不足或非常有限。偏倚风险和效应估计不精确促使进一步研究以完善并增强对这些发现的信心。