Cognitive behavioral therapy for eating disorders: A map of the systematic review evidence base.

Objective: To map and examine the systematic review evidence base regarding the effects of cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders (EDs), especially against active interventions. Method: This systematic review is an extension of an overview of CBT for all health conditions (CBT‐O). We identified ED‐related systematic reviews from the CBT‐O database and performed updated searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychInfo in April 2021 and September 2022. Results: The 44 systematic reviews included (21 meta‐analyses) were of varying quality. They focused on "high intensity" CBT, delivered face‐to‐face by qualified clinicians, in BN, BED and mixed, not specifically low‐weight samples. ED‐specific outcomes were studied most, with little consensus on their operationalization. The, often insufficient, reporting of sample characteristics did not allow assessment of the generalizability of findings. The meta‐analytic syntheses show that high intensity one‐to‐one CBT produces better short‐term effects than a mix of active controls especially on ED‐specific measures for BED, BN, and transdiagnostic samples. There is little evidence favoring group CBT or low intensity CBT against other active interventions. Discussion: While this study found evidence consistent with current ED treatment recommendations, it highlighted notable gaps that need to be addressed. There were insufficient data to allow generalizations regarding sex and gender, age, culture and comorbidity and to support CBT in AN samples. The evidence for group CBT and low intensity CBT against active controls is limited, as it is for the longer‐term effects of CBT. Our findings identify areas for future innovation and research within CBT. Public Significance: This study provides a comprehensive mapping and quality assessment of the current large systematic review research base regarding the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders (EDs), with a focus on comparisons to other active interventions. By transcending the more limited scope of individual systematic reviews, this overview highlights the gaps in the current evidence base, and thus provides guidance for future research and clinical innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]