Skip to main content

Table 3 Meta-analysis results for studies comparing a low intensity psychological intervention against a high intensity psychological intervention

From: Low intensity psychological interventions for the treatment of feeding and eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Ncomp

ES

95%CI

Z

I2

p

NNT

Q (p)

Eating disorder psychopathology (g)

7

− 0.13

− 0.30 to 0.04

− 1.51

17.83

.13

13.51

7.30 (0.29)

Only studies with a total risk of bias score of ≤ 4

3

− 0.06

− 0.28 to 0.16

− 0.53

< .001

.60

29.41

0.13 (0.94)

Effect at < 12 months follow-up

4

− 0.20

− 0.40 to − 0.01

− 2.02

< .001

.04*

8.93

0.71 (0.87)

DSM severity specifier (g)

7

− 0.15

− 0.31 to 0.00

− 1.99

< .001

< .05*

11.11

3.35 (0.76)

Only studies with a total risk of bias score of ≤ 4

3

− 0.16

− 0.38 to 0.06

− 1.44

< .001

.15

11.11

1.88 (0.39)

Effect at < 12 months follow-up

4

− 0.11

− 0.32 to 0.10

− 1.05

9.10

.30

16.13

3.30 (0.35)

Effect at ≥ 12 months follow-up

3

− 0.12

− 0.32 to 0.08

− 1.22

< .001

.22

14.71

0.69 (0.71)

Remission/recovery (RR)

5

0.70

0.56 to 0.87

− 3.19

< .001

< .01**

 

1.94 (0.75)

Only studies with a total risk of bias score of ≤ 4

3

0.68

0.54 to 0.86

− 3.30

< .001

< .01**

 

0.85 (0.55)

Effect at < 12 months follow-up

4

0.81

0.64 to 1.01

− 1.84

< .001

.07

 

0.73 (0.87)

  1. For hedges’ g, negative values favour low intensity psychological intervention. For risk ratio, values > 1 favour low intensity psychological intervention
  2. Ncomp number of comparisons, ES effect size
  3. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01