Blackbird Initiative, Órama Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
King's College London, London, UK.
Int J Eat Disord. 2021 Mar;54(3):229-243. doi: 10.1002/eat.23430. Epub 2020 Dec 11.
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared previously documented inefficiencies in central coherence and set-shifting between people with nonunderweight eating disorders (bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder) and people with anorexia nervosa.
We performed random-effects meta-analyses on 16 studies (1,112 participants) for central coherence and 38 studies (3,505 participants) for set-shifting. Random effects meta-regressions were used to test whether the effect sizes for people with nonunderweight eating disorders were significantly different from the effect sizes for people with anorexia nervosa.
People with anorexia nervosa (Hedge's g = -0.53, 95% CIs: -0.80, -0.27, p < .001) and bulimia nervosa (Hedge's g = -0.70, 95% CIs: -1.14, -0.25, p = .002), but not binge-eating disorder, had significantly poorer central coherence than healthy controls. Similarly, people with anorexia nervosa (Hedge's g = -0.38, 95% CIs: -0.50, -0.26, p < .001) and bulimia nervosa (Hedge's g = -0.55, 95% CIs: -0.81, -0.29, p < .001), but not binge-eating disorder, had significantly poorer set-shifting than healthy controls. The effect sizes for people with nonunderweight eating disorders did not significantly differ from those for people with anorexia nervosa.
Our meta-analysis was underpowered to make definitive judgments about people with binge-eating disorder. However, we found that people with bulimia nervosa clearly have central coherence and set-shifting inefficiencies which do not significantly differ from those observed in people with anorexia nervosa. Clinically, this suggests that people with bulimia nervosa might benefit from adjunctive approaches to address these inefficiencies, such as cognitive remediation therapy.
本系统评价和荟萃分析比较了非体重不足的进食障碍患者(神经性贪食症和暴食障碍)与神经性厌食症患者之间先前记录的中央连贯性和转换灵活性的效率低下。
我们对 16 项研究(1112 名参与者)进行了中央连贯性的随机效应荟萃分析,对 38 项研究(3505 名参与者)进行了转换灵活性的随机效应荟萃分析。使用随机效应元回归来检验非体重不足的进食障碍患者的效应大小是否与神经性厌食症患者的效应大小显著不同。
与健康对照组相比,神经性厌食症患者(Hedge's g = -0.53,95%置信区间:-0.80,-0.27,p <.001)和神经性贪食症患者(Hedge's g = -0.70,95%置信区间:-1.14,-0.25,p =.002)的中央连贯性明显较差,而暴食障碍患者则没有。同样,与健康对照组相比,神经性厌食症患者(Hedge's g = -0.38,95%置信区间:-0.50,-0.26,p <.001)和神经性贪食症患者(Hedge's g = -0.55,95%置信区间:-0.81,-0.29,p <.001)的转换灵活性明显较差,而暴食障碍患者则没有。非体重不足的进食障碍患者的效应大小与神经性厌食症患者的效应大小没有显著差异。
我们的荟萃分析没有足够的能力对暴食障碍患者做出明确的判断。然而,我们发现,神经性贪食症患者显然存在中央连贯性和转换灵活性效率低下,其与神经性厌食症患者观察到的效率低下没有显著差异。临床上,这表明神经性贪食症患者可能受益于附加的方法来解决这些效率低下的问题,例如认知矫正治疗。