4.4 Article

Set shifting in children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa: An exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 394-399

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22235

关键词

anorexia nervosa; thinking style; set-shifting; cognitive flexibility; executive function; adolescent

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and/or Dementia Biomedical Research Unit] at South London
  2. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. King's College London
  4. Institute of Psychiatry
  5. Swiss Anorexia Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Set shifting inefficiencies in adults with anorexia nervosa (AN) are established, however the neurocognitive profile of children and adolescents with AN is less clear. This study aimed to provide a review of the literature. Method Electronic databases were used to search for manuscripts. Results Meta-analysis was performed on seven studies using two neuropsychological tests (Trail Making Task, TMT; Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, WCST). The mean difference in outcome between AN and healthy control (HC) groups was standardized by calculating Cohen's d. Meta-analysis of TMT studies showed a nonsignificant negative, pooled standardized mean difference of -0.005 (95% C.I. -0.416 to 0.406, z = 0.02, p = .98). WCST studies revealed a nonsignificant pooled effect size of d = 0.196 (95% C.I. -0.091-0.483, z = 1.34, p = .18). Studies which did not allow for a calculation of effect size typically showed a nonsignificant, worse performance by the AN groups. Discussion The inefficiencies in set shifting that are apparent in the adult AN literature do not appear to be as pronounced in children. This may suggest that set shifting difficulties in adult AN are the result of starvation or indicative of longer duration of illness. Larger studies are needed to confirm these impressions. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2014; 47:394-399)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据