ArticleBrain sciences2021
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Decision Making under Ambiguity: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Article in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Cognitive Functions in Patients with Autogenous and Reactive Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Right‑DLPFC rTMS Transiently Modulates Risky Decision-Making and EEG Oscillatory Activity.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Decision-making using the Iowa gambling test in unaffected first-degree relatives of obsessive-compulsive disorder: Comparison with healthy controls and patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.Journal of neuropsychology · 2025Article
- Proactive control for conflict resolution is intact in subclinical obsessive-compulsive individuals.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Decision-making deficits in obsessive-compulsive disorder are associated with abnormality of recency and response consistency parameter in prospect valence learning model.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The orbitofrontal cortex represents advantageous choice in the Iowa gambling task.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Development of a scale to assess obsessive-compulsive tendencies among Japanese university students.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Inverse Association Between Resting-State Putamen Activity and Iowa Gambling Task Performance in Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Control Subjects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last decade, decision-making has been proposed to have a central role in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) aetiology, since patients show pathological doubt and an apparent inability to make decisions. Here, we aimed to comprehensively review decision making under ambiguity, as measured by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), in OCD, using a meta-analytic approach. According to PRISMA Guidelines, we selected 26 studies for a systematic review and, amongst them, 16 studies were included in a meta-analysis, comprising a total of 846 OCD patients and 763 healthy controls (HC). Our results show that OCD patients perform significantly lower than HC at the IGT, pointing towards the direction of a decision making impairment. In particular, this deficit seems to emerge mainly in the last three blocks of the IGT. IGT scores in OCD patients under the age of 18 were still significantly lower than in HC. Finally, no difference emerged between medicated and unmedicated patients, since they both scored significantly lower at the IGT compared to HC. In conclusion, our results are in line with the hypothesis according to which decision making impairment might represent a potential endophenotype lying between the clinical manifestation of OCD and its neurobiological aetiology.
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.