Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30348134›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2018

Body image in patients with somatoform disorder.

M Scheffers, H Kalisvaart, J T van Busschbach, R J Bosscher, M A J van Duijn, S A M van Broeckhuysen-Kloth, R A Schoevers, R Geenen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Body Image in Patients with Marfan Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

M ScheffersWindesheim University of Applied Sciences, School of Human Movement and Education, Campus 2-6, 8017 CA, Zwolle, the Netherlands. wjscheffers@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0469-1569
H KalisvaartWindesheim University of Applied Sciences, School of Human Movement and Education, Campus 2-6, 8017 CA, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
J T van BusschbachWindesheim University of Applied Sciences, School of Human Movement and Education, Campus 2-6, 8017 CA, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
R J BosscherWindesheim University of Applied Sciences, School of Human Movement and Education, Campus 2-6, 8017 CA, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
M A J van DuijnDepartment of Sociology, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat, 31 9712 TG, Groningen, the Netherlands.
S A M van Broeckhuysen-KlothAltrecht Psychosomatic Medicine, Vrijbaan 2, 3705 WC, Zeist, the Netherlands.
R A SchoeversDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, CC72, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
R GeenenAltrecht Psychosomatic Medicine, Vrijbaan 2, 3705 WC, Zeist, the Netherlands.
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLAltrecht GGZ · NLUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough body-related problems are common in patients with somatoform disorder, research focusing on how patients with somatoform disorder perceive and evaluate their body is scarce. The present study compared differences in body image between patients with somatoform disorder and respondents from a general population sample. It also examined differences within the somatoform disorder group between men and women and between the diagnostic subgroups conversion disorder, pain disorder and undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

methodsData were obtained from 657 patients (67.5% female) with somatoform disorder (DSM-IV-TR 300.7, 300.11, 300.81, 300.82) and 761 participants (58.6% female) from the general population. The Dresden Body Image Questionnaire (DBIQ) was used to assess body image in five domains: body acceptance, vitality, physical contact, sexual fulfilment, and self-aggrandizement. Confirmatory factor analysis and analyses of variance were performed. Since differences in age and sex were found between the somatoform disorder sample and the comparison sample, analyses were done with two samples of 560 patients with somatoform disorder and 351 individuals from the comparison sample matched on proportion of men and women and age.

resultsPatients scored significantly lower than the comparison sample on all DBIQ domains. Men scored higher than women. Patients with conversion disorder scored significantly higher on vitality and body acceptance than patients with undifferentiated somatoform disorder and pain disorder.

conclusionsThe mostly large differences in body image between patients with somatoform disorder and the comparison sample as well as differences between diagnostic subgroups underline that body image is an important feature in patients with somatoform disorder. The results indicate the usefulness of assessing body image and treating negative body image in patients with somatoform or somatic symptom disorder.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBody ImageChronic PainConversion DisorderDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSomatoform DisordersSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBody imageDresden body image questionnaireSomatic symptom disorderSomatoform disorder

Identifiers

PMID30348134
PMCPMC6198536
OpenAlexW2896357319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.