**2. Methods**

A systematic literature search was performed on the topic of medication in AN in order to perform a systematic overview, according to the following method.

#### *2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategies*

Searches were performed on online databases, namely MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Web of Science. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the systematic overview of systematic reviews, meta- analyses and selected trials (Population Intervention Control Outcome and Study design (PICOS) criteria and other elements).

<sup>1</sup> AN: Anorexia Nervosa; <sup>2</sup> BN: Bulimia Nervosa; <sup>3</sup> BED: Binge Eating Disorders; <sup>4</sup> ED: Eating Disorder; <sup>5</sup> RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Only meta-analyses and systematic reviews with a detailed methodology were retained; narrative or qualitative reviews were excluded, as they provide elements only on some studies, and can be biased by a lack of information. We excluded studies that investigated mixed eating disorder groups, as their conclusions cannot be extended to AN.

The searches were complemented by a manual search: reference lists of articles were manually investigated to identify reviews or meta-analyses potentially relevant for inclusion that were not detected by electronic search.

The search strategies were conducted in two phases by two of the investigators (C.B., N.G.).

First, we defined a search in order to identify all reviews and meta-analyses published on the topic of drug treatments in AN with the following terms and algorithm, which, among the algorithms tested with different key words and combinations, proved to be the one that retrieved the largest corpus of papers: "anorexia nervosa and pharmacotherapy or drug treatment or medication or nutrition or enteral nutrition or weight restoration".

The search on the three databases previously mentioned selected 289 papers, 45 of which were reviews or meta-analyses on the topic (see Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow-chart Figure 1). Two further papers were identified by manual research.

Among the 45 reviews or meta-analyses, 26 were excluded for the following reasons: 16 were overviews and/or not systematic reviews with no explicit methodology for the selection of the papers mentioned [9–24], one review [25] predated the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry review, one [26] reviewed the same eight studies as a meta-analysis included [27], five focused on unpublished data, or studies that were reviewed in later papers included here [28–32], one mainly focused on emerging treatment research or perspectives [33], two concerned oxytocin but with no specific results in AN [34,35].

The 19 selected papers (15 systematic reviews and four meta-analyses) are presented in Table 3.

**Figure 1.** Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram [36].

**Table 3.** Meta-analyses and systematic reviews selected.



ED: Eating Disorder; BMI: Body Mass Index; EE: Ethinyl Estradiol; GH: Growth Hormone; OC: Oral Contraceptive; DHEA: Dehydroepiandrosterone; RCT(s): randomized controlled trial(s).

Secondly, the overview was completed by original research (RCTs, open studies as mentioned previously) published after the last review or meta-analysis reviewed. In addition, for nutritional and somatic aspects, as there was no meta-analysis nor systematic review on some of the subjects (vitamin D and calcium, micronutrients supplementation and functional digestive disorders), we reviewed published papers (RCTs, and if not open studies as mentioned previously), and retrospective or case studies if no other information existed on the topic of AN. For functional digestive disorders, as there were no papers about their treatment in the AN literature, reviews including this topic (in general and not in AN) were selected.

#### *2.2. Study selection and Quality Assessment*

From the French Anorexia and Bulimia Federation (http://www.anorexieboulimie-afdas.fr/), we recruited a group of eating disorder specialists participating on a voluntary basis, including nutritionists, an endocrinologist, an adolescent paediatrician, psychiatrists, and child and adolescent psychiatrists (see authors of the paper).

Eligible papers were screened in the literature search by their title and abstract by two reviewers working together (C.B. and N.G.). The papers were selected by agreement on the basis of the inclusion exclusion criteria (Table 2). Then, the screened papers (meta-analyses or systematic reviews) were read in full and again selected or not, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. If there was any uncertainty regarding the eligibility of a paper, it was referred to the rest of team for further discussion.

Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus; they mainly concerned the suitability of studies for the purpose of the review.

#### **3. Results**
