Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25773226›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2015

Application of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework to eating disorders: emerging concepts and research.

Jennifer E Wildes, Marsha D Marcus

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Jennifer E WildesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA, wildesje@upmc.edu.
Marsha D Marcus

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project was initiated by the National Institute of Mental Health as a heuristic for addressing the limitations of categorical, symptom-based psychiatric diagnoses. RDoC is conceptualized as a matrix, with the rows representing dimensional constructs or domains implicated in the expression of psychiatric symptoms and the columns representing units of analysis that can be used to assess dimensional constructs (i.e., genes, molecules, cells, circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-reports). Few studies in eating disorders have adopted an RDoC framework, but accumulating data provide support for the relevance of RDoC dimensions to eating disorder symptoms. Herein, we review findings from RDoC-informed studies across the five domains of functioning included in the RDoC matrix-negative valence systems, positive valence systems, cognitive systems, systems for social processes, and arousal and regulatory systems-and describe directions for future research utilizing RDoC to enhance study design and treatment development in eating disorders.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersResearch DesignCognitionHumansNational Institute of Mental Health (U.S.)United States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.