4.2 Review

Central coherence in eating disorders: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 586-598

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/15622975.2014.909606

关键词

eating disorders; anorexia nervosa; bulimia nervosa; central coherence; global processing

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
  4. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London
  5. Swiss Anorexia Foundation
  6. King's College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. A bias towards local information over the global gist (weak central coherence, WCC), has been identified as a possible contributing and maintaining factor in eating disorders (ED). The present study aimed to provide an updated review of the WCC literature and examine the hypothesis that individuals with ED have WCC. Methods. The new search found 12 eligible studies. Meta-analyses were performed on nine of these 12 studies, the remaining three were commented on individually. Data were combined with data from the previous 2008 review, and meta-analyses were performed on 16 studies (nine studies from the new search and seven studies from 2008 review). Results. Meta-analysis of the Group Embedded Figures Task provided evidence of superior local processing across all ED subtypes (pooled effect size of d = -0.62 (95% CI = -0.94, -0.31), P < 0.001). Evidence of poorer global processing in ED groups was found from meta-analyses of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figures task (d = -0.63 (95% CI = -0.77, -0.49, P < 0.001), and the Object Assembly Task (d = -0.65 (95% CI = -0.94, -0.37), P < 0.0001). Conclusions. As well as supporting the results of previous studies by providing evidence of inefficient global processing, this review has provided evidence of superior local processing, which supports the WCC hypothesis in ED.

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

4.2
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