Page 90 - The efficacy and effectiveness of psychological treatments for eating disorders - Elske van den Berg

90 Chapter 4
Remission rates completers
Remission, defined as EDE-Q global score < 2.77 (UK norms) or < 1.79 (Dutch norms), was achieved by 53.8% (UK norms) respectively 50.0% (Dutch norms) of patients during TAU; during CBT-E 59.0% (UK norms) respectively 37.7% (Dutch norms) remitted, with no statistical difference between CBT-E and TAU remission (UK norms p = .655; Dutch norms p =.286). Reliable Change Index (RCI) was estab- lished (Jacobson & Truax, 1991) as 0.81 change on the EDE-Q global score. No statis- tical difference was present between RCI in TAU (62.5%) and CBT-E (65.0%) (p = .829). On Clinically Significant Change (CSC), defined as RCI plus EDE-Q global score < 2.77, no statistical difference was present between TAU (41.7%) and CBT-E (51.7%) (p = 407). Applying a robust definition of remission (EDE-Q global score < 2.77, no eating disorder behaviors and BMI ≥ 18.5), again no difference was found between TAU (23.1% remitted) and CBT-E (19.7% remitted) (p = .720). On reaching BMI ≥ 18.5, a difference was found with 17.6% of patients in the TAU cohort reaching healthy weight versus 47.1% in the CBT-E cohort (p < .001).
Treatment outcomes on multiple imputed data
Pooled paired sample tests on an imputed dataset showed that eating disorder attitudes as well as general psychopathology improved in both cohorts (all p <.001). On the decrease of eating disorder behaviors, no differences were found between both cohorts. Imputed linear mixed model analyses showed a difference with regard to BMI change in favor of CBT-E (EMD = 1.33, SD = .29, 95% CI .76 -1.90, p < .001).
Remission rates on multiple imputed data
Pooled multiple imputed analyses did not show differences on remission rates between both cohorts, both on UK (64.0% TAU, 61.4% CBT-E, p = .729) and Dutch norms (26.7% TAU, 30.7% CBT-E, p = .573). Imputed analyses showed no differences on either RCI (61.3% TAU; 56.8% CBT-E, p = .559) or on CSC (48.0% TAU; 45.5% CBT-E; p = .745). Applying the robust defined remission rate also did not show a difference (9.3% TAU; 14.6 % CBT-E, p = .304). Examining reaching BMI ≥ 18.5 however, pooled imputed data showed a difference with 17.3% in TAU versus 46.6% in CBT-E reaching health weight (p < .001).