Hay Phillipa J, Touyz Stephen, Claudino Angélica M, Lujic Sanja, Smith Caroline A, Madden Sloane
Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, 2751.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 21;1(1):CD010827. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010827.pub2.
Clinical guidelines recommend outpatient care for the majority of people with an eating disorder. The optimal use of inpatient treatment or combination of inpatient and partial hospital care is disputed and practice varies widely.
To assess the effects of treatment setting (inpatient, partial hospitalisation, or outpatient) on the reduction of symptoms and increase in remission rates in people with:1. Anorexia nervosa and atypical anorexia nervosa;2. Bulimia nervosa and other eating disorders.
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 2 July 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 20 November 2015). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov (6 July 2018). We ran a forward citation search on the Web of Science to identify additional reports citing any of the included studies, and screened reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews identified during our searches.
We included randomised controlled trials that tested the efficacy of inpatient, outpatient, or partial hospital settings for treatment of eating disorder in adults, adolescents, and children, whose diagnoses were determined according to the DSM-5, or other internationally accepted diagnostic criteria. We excluded trials of treatment setting for medical or psychiatric complications or comorbidities (e.g. hypokalaemia, depression) of an eating disorder.
We followed standard Cochrane procedures to select studies, extract and analyse data, and interpret and present results. We extracted data according to the DSM-5 criteria. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias. We used the mean (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data outcomes, and the risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes. We included the 95% confidence interval (CI) with each result. We presented the quality of the evidence and estimate of effect for weight or body mass index (BMI) and acceptability (number who completed treatment), in a 'Summary of findings' table for the comparison for which we had sufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis.
We included five trials in our review. Four trials included a total of 511 participants with anorexia nervosa, and one trial had 55 participants with bulimia nervosa. Three trials are awaiting classification, and may be included in future versions of this review. We assessed a risk of bias from lack of blinding of participants and therapists in all trials, and unclear risk for allocation concealment and randomisation in one study.We had planned four comparisons, and had data for meta-analyses for one. For anorexia nervosa, there may be little or no difference between specialist inpatient care and active outpatient or combined brief hospital and outpatient care in weight gain at 12 months after the start of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.05; 2 trials, 232 participants; low-quality evidence). People may be more likely to complete treatment when randomised to outpatient care settings, but this finding is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; 3 trials, 319 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for these outcomes because of risks of bias, small numbers of participants and events, and variable level of specialist expertise and intensity of treatment.We had no data, or data from only one trial for the primary outcomes for each of the other three comparisons.No trials measured weight or acceptance of treatment for anorexia nervosa, when comparing inpatient care provided by a specialist eating disorder service and health professionals and a waiting list, no active treatment, or treatment as usual.There was no clear difference in weight gain between settings, and only slightly more acceptance for the partial hospital setting over specialist inpatient care for weight restoration in anorexia nervosa.There was no clear difference in weight gain or acceptability of treatment between specialist inpatient care and partial hospital care for bulimia nervosa, and other binge eating disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether any treatment setting was superior for treating people with moderately severe (or less) anorexia nervosa, or other eating disorders.More research is needed for all comparisons of inpatient care versus alternate care.
临床指南建议大多数饮食失调患者接受门诊治疗。住院治疗或住院与部分住院护理相结合的最佳使用方式存在争议,且实践差异很大。
评估治疗环境(住院、部分住院或门诊)对以下人群症状减轻和缓解率提高的影响:1. 神经性厌食症和非典型神经性厌食症;2. 神经性贪食症和其他饮食失调。
我们检索了截至2018年7月2日的Ovid MEDLINE(1950年起)、Embase(1974年起)、PsycINFO(1967年起)和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)。这些数据库的早期检索是通过Cochrane常见精神障碍对照试验注册库(CCMD-CTR)(截至2015年11月20日的所有年份)进行的。我们还检索了世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台和ClinicalTrials.gov(2018年7月6日)。我们在科学网进行了向前引文检索,以识别引用任何纳入研究的其他报告,并筛选了纳入研究的参考文献列表以及在检索过程中识别出的相关综述。
我们纳入了随机对照试验,这些试验测试了住院、门诊或部分住院环境对成人、青少年和儿童饮食失调治疗的疗效,其诊断根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版(DSM-5)或其他国际公认的诊断标准确定。我们排除了针对饮食失调的医学或精神科并发症或共病(如低钾血症、抑郁症)的治疗环境试验。
我们遵循Cochrane标准程序选择研究、提取和分析数据,以及解释和呈现结果。我们根据DSM-5标准提取数据。我们使用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险。对于连续数据结果,我们使用均值(MD)或标准化均值差(SMD),对于二分结果,我们使用风险比(RR)。每个结果都包括95%置信区间(CI)。我们在“结果总结”表中呈现了体重或体重指数(BMI)以及可接受性(完成治疗的人数)的证据质量和效应估计,用于我们有足够数据进行荟萃分析的比较。
我们的综述纳入了五项试验。四项试验共纳入了511名神经性厌食症患者,一项试验纳入了55名神经性贪食症患者。三项试验正在等待分类,可能会纳入本综述的未来版本。我们评估了所有试验中参与者和治疗师缺乏盲法导致的偏倚风险,以及一项研究中分配隐藏和随机化的风险不明确。我们计划了四项比较,并有一项比较的荟萃分析数据。对于神经性厌食症,在治疗开始后12个月时,专科住院护理与积极的门诊护理或短期住院与门诊联合护理之间在体重增加方面可能几乎没有差异(标准化均值差(SMD)-0.22,95%CI -0.49至0.05;2项试验,232名参与者;低质量证据)。随机分配到门诊护理环境的人完成治疗的可能性可能更高,但这一发现非常不确定(风险比(RR)0.75,95%CI 0.64至0.88;3项试验,319名参与者;极低质量证据)。由于偏倚风险、参与者和事件数量少以及专科专业知识水平和治疗强度的差异,我们对这些结果的证据质量进行了降级。对于其他三项比较中的每一项的主要结果,我们没有数据或仅有一项试验的数据。在比较专科饮食失调服务和卫生专业人员提供的住院护理与等待名单、无积极治疗或常规治疗时,没有试验测量神经性厌食症的体重或治疗接受情况。在不同环境之间体重增加没有明显差异,在神经性厌食症体重恢复方面,部分住院环境比专科住院护理的接受度仅略高。在神经性贪食症和其他暴饮暴食障碍方面,专科住院护理和部分住院护理在体重增加或治疗接受度方面没有明显差异。
没有足够的证据得出任何治疗环境在治疗中度严重(或更轻)的神经性厌食症或其他饮食失调患者方面是否更优越的结论。对于住院护理与替代护理的所有比较,都需要更多的研究。