Evidence Hub

The effects of waiting time for outpatient psychotherapeutic interventions on patient-reported outcomes in adolescents and adults with eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kranes M, Münchenberg PS, Thomas C, Schulz RS, Campione A, Kreutzberg A

Journal of eating disorders, 2026

647 participants

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of waiting time for outpatient psychotherapeutic interventions on patient-reported outcomes in adolescents and adults with eating disorders.

Method: MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CENTRAL and BASE were searched on 12 August 2025. Quantitative studies of adolescents (≥ 10 years) and adults with eating disorders that examined waitlist conditions prior to outpatient psychotherapeutic interventions and measured eating disorder pathology with the Children's Eating Attitudes Test (chEAT) or Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A within-group random-effects meta-analysis was performed assessing pre-post change scores of the EDE-Q Global Score (primary analysis) and EDE-Q subscales (secondary analyses). A full protocol has been pre-registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251090691).

Results: Nine waitlist-controlled studies (total n = 647, waitlisted n = 283) including adult participants with bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder and 'eating disorder not otherwise specified' met our eligibility criteria. Eight studies (waitlisted n = 273) were included in the meta-analysis. Participants entered the waiting period with high EDE-Q Global Scores, ranging from 3.08 to 4.65 across studies. The pooled pre-post effect estimate was Hedges' g = - 0.17 (95% CI - 0.30 to - 0.05), indicating a negligible reduction in eating disorder pathology. Certainty of…

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. Reported size: 647 participants or records.

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