Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41549282›Full record

ReviewJournal of eating disorders2026

Anorexia nervosa: 150 years of critical theory.

Emma Bryant, Stephen Touyz, Anna Oldershaw, Janet Treasure, Sarah Maguire

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emma BryantInsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. emma.bryant@sydney.edu.au.
Stephen TouyzInsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Anna OldershawSalomons Institute for Applied Psychology, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK.
Janet TreasureKings College, London, UK.
Sarah MaguireInsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnorexia Nervosa (AN) was first classified 150 years ago, although descriptions of pathology consistent with the illness can be traced as far back as the Hellenistic era and the Middle Ages. Despite decades of clinical theorising and a wide range of treatment approaches, recovery rates remain very low. In light of the limited efficacy of current therapeutic paradigms, there have been growing calls to critically reassess the taxonomy and conceptualisation of AN. This narrative review paper traces the evolution of theoretical frameworks surrounding AN, from early historical accounts in the 4th Century BCE to contemporary models. By examining these shifting perspectives, the paper aims to provide a foundation for renewed inquiry into the phenomenology of the illness and to support the development of more effective, nuanced approaches to treatment and understanding.

methodPubMed and Scopus databases were searched for relevant articles. Additional articles were identified through references in published studies. Abstracts were screened for relevance and studies were included if their design and findings addressed theory of illness or phenomenology in AN. DISCUSSION: AN has been viewed over time through psychodynamic, family systems, feminist and evolutionary lenses, among others. The conceptualisation of the illness is historically fragmented, shaped by shifting cultural, medical, and psychological paradigms rather than a linear theoretical progression. Modern understanding recognises AN as biopsychosocial yet lacks a unified, coherent model and mostly treats under a psychological paradigm. Dominant therapies like FBT and CBT-E show modest outcomes and high dropout rates, reflecting deeper issues in theoretical alignment and treatment efficacy. Calls for an integrated, individualised framework stress the need for empirical, multidisciplinary theory to support flexible, evidence-based treatment innovation.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaEating disordersPsychological theoryPsychopathology

Identifiers

PMID41549282
PMCPMC12895742

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.