Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33037934›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2020

Non-Suicidal Self-Injury and Eating Disordered Behaviors: An Update on What We Do and Do Not Know.

Glenn Kiekens, Laurence Claes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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.

Glenn KiekensFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, box 3720, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Glenn.Kiekens@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0001-8747-3385
Laurence ClaesFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, box 3720, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2287-3158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe current report aims to summarize recent advances about the relationship between non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and eating disordered (ED) behaviors and highlights meaningful directions for future research. RECENT

findingsWhile there is solid evidence indicating a robust cross-sectional association between NSSI and ED behaviors, emerging evidence suggests that the temporal relationship between these behaviors may be bidirectional. Shared functions and risk factors may explain why these behaviors often co-develop. At the same time, little is still known about the psychosocial consequences of comorbid NSSI and ED engagement, and there is a lack of intervention studies that target these behaviors simultaneously. It is well-established that NSSI and ED behaviors frequently co-occur. The field should now turn to longitudinal designs to advance our understanding of the longer-term developmental and the shorter-term momentary relationship of these behaviors in daily life. Providing insight into these areas will help guide the deployment of evidence-based interventions that match the needs of clients who report comorbid NSSI and ED behaviors.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersSelf-Injurious BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFeeding BehaviorHumansRisk FactorsComorbidityEating disordersNon-suicidal self-injurySelf-harmSelf-injury

Identifiers

PMID33037934
PMCPMC7547297

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.