You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 43 Behaviour therapy based inpatient treatment for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa

From: Canadian practice guidelines for the treatment of children and adolescents with eating disorders

Certainty assessmentImpactCertaintyImportance
№ of studiesStudy designRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerations
Change in Weight (assessed with: Pre-post measures of weight), Change in EAT scores, EDI Scores
 4Case Seriesvery serious anot seriousnot seriousserious bnoneFour Case series utilizing a behaviour therapy approach. Total 198 patients. Various approaches to reporting change in weight. One study reported absolute weight change of 1.89 kg (+/− 1.41) over a mean of 23 days in hospital; one study reported a rise from a mean of 65.9%TGW to 87.4%TGW over 11 weeks. One study reported that patients admitted at > 75%TGW all reached 100%of their TGW by discharge, 91% of those admitted at < 75%TGW not requiring NGT feeds reached their TGW by discharge and only 62% of patients admitted at < 75%TGW and requiring NGT feeds reached 100% of their TGW at discharge. This study also noted that those admitted at > 75%TGW had a mean LOS of 20.8 d, those < 75%TGW at admission had a mean LOS of 18.4d and those < 75%TGW and NGT fed had a mean LOS of 32.7d. The final case series reported weight gain under 2 types of behaviour contracts, varying only with regards to the expected rate of weight gain (ie 0.36 kg/q4d vs 0.55 kg/q4d). Those treated under the contract requiring greater weight restoration gained weight at a faster rate (0.09 kg/d, range 0.04–0.4 kg/d vs 0.17 kg/d, range 0.01–0.64 kg/d), thereby attaining a greater weight gain overall during admission (LOS 28 days). Most case series reported weight gain observed while patients were adhering to a behaviour contract. LOS in these studies ranged from 13 days to 6.25 weeks. In all cases patients gained weight (ranging from 0.17 to 0.63 kg/day.
VERY LOW
CRITICAL
very serious anot seriousnot seriousserious call plausible residual confounding would reduce the demonstrated effectOne study measured EAT scores in 24 patients at admission and discharge (mean LOS 11 weeks) and reported a change from total mean EAT of 37.1 at admission to 12.7 at discharge (p = 0.0001).
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
very serious anot seriousnot seriousserious call plausible residual confounding would reduce the demonstrated effectOne study of 24 patients, mean LOS 11 weeks. Reported a change in EDI score “Drive for Thinness” score of 8.0 at admission to 1.9 at discharge (p = 0.02). Other subscales and total EDI score not reported.
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Change in Weight, Change in EAT score, change in intake, change in rate of purging
 11Case reportsvery serious anot seriousnot seriousserious bnoneCase reports all described patients gaining weight in hospital ranging from 0.45 kg/wk. to 4.0 kg/wk. Two case reports did not note the LOS andstated that the patients gained 10 kg total and change in BMI from 13.5 to 16.5 during their admissions.
VERY LOW
CRITICAL
very serious anot seriousnot seriousserious call plausible residual confounding would reduce the demonstrated effectOne case report describing that EAT scores remained high for the first 7 weeks of treatment and weight restoration (4.5 kg over first 7 weeks) and then dropped (from total score of 60 to 10) over the last 3 weeks of 10 week admission.
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
very serious anot seriousnot seriousnot seriousstrong associationTwo case reports describing change in intake measured by kcal/day from admission to discharge. Only one study reported LOS of 39 days. Kcal/day increased from 1600 kcal/d at admission to 3900 kcal/d at discharge in this study. The other study did not report on LOS, but stated that intake increased from 850 kcal/d at admission to 1700 kcal/d at discharge.
VERY LOW
CRITICAL
very serious anot seriousnot seriousnot seriousnone1 case report describing a decrease in purging after meals from 48% of meals/week to 0% of meals per week. LOS not noted.
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
  1. Explanations
  2. aObservational studies with no comparison group or control
  3. bWide confidence intervals in some studies, overlapping with any true effect
  4. cConfidence intervals not noted
  5. Bibliography:
  6. Case series - Collins 1983 [222], Solanto 1994 [227], Steinhausen 1985 [224], Nygaard 1990 [226]
  7. Case reports - Alessi 1989 [225], Blanchet-Collet 2016 [228], Blinder 1970 [215], Boey 1985 [223], Cinciripini 1983 [221], Clark 1981 [220], Garfinkel 1973 [216], Halmi 1975 [217], Leitenberg 1968 [214], Pertschuk 1978 [218], Poole 1978 [219]