Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of interventions for universal, selective and indicated prevention of eating disorders: study protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

S. Schlegl, Felicitas Hirler, A. Gerich, M. Højlund, Eric Stice, Tracey D. Wade, D. Wilfley, J. Downs et al.

Journal of Eating Disorders, 2025

3 citations

Abstract

Eating disorders (EDs) are severe psychiatric conditions, with prevalence rates ranging from 5.5 to 17.9% in women and 0.6 to 2.4% in men. EDs carry a high risk of chronicity and mortality, highlighting the need for effective prevention strategies. Primary prevention can target the entire population (universal), high-risk groups (selective), or individuals with early signs (indicated). Despite substantial research, prior reviews often show limitations, such as single-author data extraction, lack of quality assessment, reliance on endpoint data, exclusion of obesity prevention programs, or outdated findings. No review has yet evaluated the comparative effectiveness of multiple interventions across risk groups. This article outlines a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol to assess the comparative effectiveness of various ED preventive interventions across different prevention types and populations. Eligible studies will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children, adolescents, and adults across a range of settings. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL. All prevention types (universal, selective, indicated) will be included. Interventions will encompass psychological, educational, physical, and nutritional approaches aimed at preventing EDs, disordered eating, or negative body image and/or reducing risk factors. Coprimary outcomes will be ED diagnostic symptoms, overall ED pathology, ED onset,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free