ArticleBMJ open2019
Perceived physical health in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fathers' Experience of Perinatal Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms: A Systematic Literature Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2021Pooled it
- A Multidimensional Data Set for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder to Strengthen Research and Care: A Cross-Sectional Delphi Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Fertility-Related Quality of Life in Men Undergoing Medically Assisted Reproduction During the Pandemic: Perfectionism and Thought Control Beliefs Moderate the Effects of the Type of Treatment.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2021Article
- Risk for Pathological Contamination Fears at Coronavirus Time: Proposal of Early Intervention and Prevention Strategies.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2020Article
- A Pilot Study of Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal of Patients With OCD: The Moderator Roles of Attachment and Contamination Symptoms.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ), a Self-Management Skill Assessment Tool, in Italian Chronic Patients.Psychology research and behavior management · 2020Article
- Propensity to Sexual Response among Adults with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental health condition associated with severe impairment in a variety of quality of life domains, an increased physical health burden, and a higher risk of general medical conditions and mortality compared with the general population. While there is a large amount of literature on psychological quality of life, a systematic review of perceived physical health in OCD is lacking. A quantitative summary might suggest that policy makers also focus the evaluation on perceived physical health and develop new strategies also aimed at this outcome. The current paper presents a protocol for the first systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at summarising perceived physical health in OCD by specifically examining perceived physical health status, bodily pain and role limitations due to physical problems in patients with OCD compared with controls. The review will also investigate potential demographic and clinical moderators of perceived physical health status (age, gender, OCD severity, publication date, methodological quality). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies will be included if using a clinical group with a current primary diagnosis of OCD established by international standardised criteria, if measuring perceived physical health status, and if using screened or community participants as controls. No publication date or language restriction will be applied. An online systematic search of electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and examination of conference proceedings and theses/dissertations will be conducted by independent reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The current review does not require ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2018 CRD42018106194.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.