ArticlePloS one2020
An empirically derived recommendation for the classification of body dysmorphic disorder: Findings from structural equation modeling.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), together with its subtype muscle dysmorphia (MD), has been relocated from the Somatoform Disorders category in the DSM-IV to the newly created Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders category in the DSM-5. Both categorizations have been criticized, and an empirically derived classification of BDD is lacking. A community sample of N = 736 participants completed an online survey assessing different psychopathologies. Using a structural equation modeling approach, six theoretically derived models, which differed in their allocation of BDD symptoms to various factors (i.e. general psychopathology, somatoform, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, affective, body image, and BDD model) were tested in the full sample and in a restricted sample (n = 465) which indicated primary concerns other than shape and weight. Furthermore, measurement invariance across gender was examined. Of the six models, only the body image model showed a good fit (CFI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.049, SRMR = 0.027, TLI = 0.959), and yielded better AIC and BIC indices than the competing models. Analyses in the restricted sample replicated these findings. Analyses of measurement invariance of the body image model showed partial metric invariance across gender. The findings suggest that a body image model provides the best fit for the classification of BDD and MD. This is in line with previous studies showing strong similarities between eating disorders and BDD, including MD. Measurement invariance across gender indicates a comparable presentation and comorbid structure of BDD in males and females, which also corresponds to the equal prevalence rates of BDD across gender.
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.