Search

Objective: Identifying modifiable predictors of outcomes following treatment for eating disorders may help to tailor interventions to patients' individual needs, improve treatment efficacy, and develop new interventions. The goal of this meta‐analysis was to quantify the association between pretreatment motivation and posttreatment changes in eating disorder symptomology. Method: We reviewed 196 longitudinal studies reporting on change on indices of overall eating‐disorder symptomatology, weight gain, binge‐eating, vomiting, anxiety/depression, and treatment adherence. Meta‐analyses were performed using two complementary approaches: (a) combined probability analysis using the added Z's method; (b) effect size analyses. Using random‐effect models, effect sizes were pooled when there were at least three studies with the same type of statistical design and reporting statistics on the same outcome. Heterogeneity in study outcome was evaluated using Q and I2 statistics. Studies were reviewed qualitatively when the number of studies or reported data were insufficient to perform a meta‐analysis. Results: Forty‐two articles were included. Although samples and treatments differed substantially across studies, results across studies were remarkably consistent. Both combined‐probability and effect‐size analyses indicated positive effects of pretreatment motivation on improvement in general eating‐disorder symptoms (Cohen's r =.17), and an absence of effects on anxiety/depression symptoms. Remaining outcome indices were subject to selective reporting and/or small sample size bias. Discussion: Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating treatment engagement approaches in the treatment of eating disorders. Optimal reporting of study findings and improving study quality would improve future efforts to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the relationship between motivation and eating disorder symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Objective Evidence associates anorexia nervosa (AN) with epigenetic alterations that could contribute to illness risk or entrenchment. We investigated the extent to which AN is associated with a distinct methylation profile compared to that seen in normal-eater women. Method Genome-wide methylation profiles, obtained using DNA from whole blood, were determined in 29 women currently ill with AN (10 with AN-restrictive type, 19 with AN-binge/purge type) and 15 normal-weight, normal-eater control women, using 450 K Illumina bead arrays. Results Regardless of type, AN patients showed higher and less-variable global methylation patterns than controls. False Discovery Rate corrected comparisons identified 14 probes that were hypermethylated in women with AN relative to levels obtained in normal-eater controls, representing genes thought to be associated with histone acetylation, RNA modification, cholesterol storage and lipid transport, and dopamine and glutamate signaling. Age of onset was significantly associated with differential methylation in gene pathways involved in development of the brain and spinal cord, while chronicity of illness was significantly linked to differential methylation in pathways involved with synaptogenesis, neurocognitive deficits, anxiety, altered social functioning, and bowel, kidney, liver and immune function. Discussion Although pre-existing differences cannot be ruled out, our findings are consistent with the idea of secondary alterations in methylation at genomic regions pertaining to social-emotional impairments and physical sequelae that are commonly seen in AN patients. Further investigation is needed to establish the clinical relevance of the affected genes in AN, and, importantly, reversibility of effects observed with nutritional rehabilitation and treatment. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2015; 48:874-882) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Accurate and complete study reporting allows evidence users to critically appraise studies, evaluate possible bias, and assess generalizability and applicability. We evaluated the extent to which recent studies on depression screening accuracy were reported consistent with Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement requirements. Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018 through May 21, 2021 for depression screening accuracy studies. Results: 106 studies were included. Of 34 STARD items or sub‐items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1, SD = 2.5; median = 10.0). There were eight items adequately reported, seven partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and four not applicable in ≥50% of studies; the remaining four items had mixed reporting. Items inadequately reported in ≥70% of studies related to the rationale for index test cut‐offs examined, missing data management, analyses of variability in accuracy results, sample size determination, participant flow, study registration, and study protocol. Conclusion: Recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported. Journals should endorse and implement STARD adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Depression screening tool accuracy studies should be conducted with large enough sample sizes to generate precise accuracy estimates. We assessed the proportion of recently published depression screening tool diagnostic accuracy studies that reported sample size calculations; the proportion that provided confidence intervals (CIs); and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity. In addition, we assessed whether these results have improved since a previous review of studies published in 2013–2015. Methods: MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018, through May 21, 2021. Results: Twelve of 106 primary studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review. Thirty‐six studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs. Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, seven (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of ≤10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of ≥21%. Eighty‐four studies (82%) had lower bounds of CIs <80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity. These results were similar to those reported previously. Conclusion: Few studies reported sample size calculations, and the number of included individuals in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]