Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758405›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry research2021

Automatic and focused hair pulling in trichotillomania: Valid and useful subtypes?

Jon E Grant, Samuel R Chamberlain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Jon E GrantDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA. Electronic address: jongrant@uchicago.edu.
Samuel R ChamberlainDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; and Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 110049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior work suggested that trichotillomania may have four subtypes based on the extent to which pulling is automatic or focused in nature. 238 adults with trichotillomania undertook clinical and cognitive assessments and were assigned into four subtypes based on k-means clustering of Milwaukee Inventory for Subtypes of Trichotillomania-Adult Version (MIST-A) scores. We examined whether a cluster solution was apparent using conventional metrics. Based on prior literature, we then force-fitted a four subtype model (low-low, low-high, high-low, high-high). Subtypes were compared and validity of the MIST-A subtyping approach was evaluated. A cluster solution did not converge based on conventional metrics. Following force-fitting, subtypes did not differ on demographic variables, age at symptom onset, nor duration of illness. The high-focused high-automatic subtype had worse symptom severity than other subtypes. Co-morbid depression was more common in the low-focused low-automatic and high-focused low-automatic subtypes. This study suggests that MIST-A subtypes may not be valid or clinically useful based on several issues. First, k-means models indicated that the MIST-A data did not generate any cluster solutions. Second, when a forced cluster solution was fitted, the subtypes did not differ on the vast majority of measures. Third, force-fitting four subtypes yielded findings that were logically inconsistent (e.g. worse quality of life in one group, but higher rates of comorbid anxiety/depression in others). Overall, we suggest that both focused and automatic pulling may characterize the same pulling episode, or certainly the same person across episodes. Thus they may be clinically relevant variables, but not forming coherent subtypes.

Indexed as

TrichotillomaniaAdultComorbidityHairHumansQuality of LifeAutomaticComorbidityFocusedSubtypesTrichotillomania

Identifiers

PMID34758405
PMCPMC7612152

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.