Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34480102›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of obesity (2005)2021

Interoception and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between interoception and BMI.

Eric Robinson, Georgia Foote, Jemma Smith, Suzanne Higgs, Andrew Jones

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of obesity (2005), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Microstructural Brain Correlates of Inter-individual Differences in Respiratory Interoception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eric RobinsonInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. eric.robinson@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3586-5533
Georgia FooteInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jemma SmithInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Suzanne HiggsSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew JonesInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteroception refers to the processes by which we sense, interpret and integrate signals originating from within the body. Deficits in interoception have been linked to higher BMI and may contribute to weight gain. However, there have been conflicting findings and it is not clear how higher BMI is associated with different facets of interoception, such as interoceptive accuracy (the ability to detect internal signals) and sensibility (the tendency to attend to internal signals).

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that measured interoception and BMI. We examined relationships between interoception and BMI in children and adults separately and as a function of interoceptive facet and measure. In sensitivity analyses, we tested for evidence of publication bias and whether the results were consistent when studies with a high risk of bias were excluded.

resultsA total of 87 articles were eligible for inclusion. In adults (121 effects, 10,425 participants), there was cross-sectional evidence of higher BMI being associated with overall deficits in interoception (r = -0.054, 95% CI: -0.084 to -0.025) and this was consistent across sensitivity analyses. There was no statistically significant evidence of moderation by interoceptive facet or measure, although there was some variability in effect size estimates based on interoceptive facet and measures. A smaller meta-analysis limited to studies that compared participants with normal weight vs. overweight/obesity indicated poorer interoception in participants with overweight/obesity (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.18).

conclusionsIn cross-sectional studies, deficits in interoception are associated with higher BMI. However, it remains unclear whether deficits in interoception contribute to or are a consequence of weight gain and obesity.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexHumansInteroceptionObesity

Identifiers

PMID34480102
PMCPMC8606313
OpenAlexW3193420069

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.