SynthesisJournal of psychiatric research2025
Empirically informed symptom severity cutoffs for body dysmorphic disorder.
Synthesis in Journal of psychiatric research, 2025. 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.
- Detecting body dysmorphic disorder in the age of algorithms.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSymptom severity cutoffs for body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) are lacking, hindering communication between professionals and with the patient community.
methodWe pooled data from 11 clinical trials or high-quality cohort studies from specialist clinics, totaling 804 individuals with BDD (80 % girls/women, 67 % adults). All participants had baseline scores on the adult or adolescent versions of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Modified for BDD (BDD-YBOCS) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale (CGI-S). Receiver-operating characteristic analyses were used to identify BDD-YBOCS severity cutoffs, using the CGI-S as the benchmark measure. The classification performance of the cutoffs was evaluated in a holdout sample, consisting of 20 % of randomly selected participants.
resultsNo participants had subclinical symptoms and the cutoff for clinical versus subclinical cases was not computed. A BDD-YBOCS score ≥24 distinguished moderate from mild cases (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.72 [0.64-0.81]; accuracy: 77 %), a score ≥30 distinguished severe from moderate cases (AUC = 0.83 [0.90-0.87]; accuracy: 77 %), and a score ≥37 distinguished extreme from severe cases (AUC = 0.82 [0.77-0.87]; accuracy: 80 %). The classification performance of the cutoffs was modest in the holdout sample (62 %), but consistent cutoffs were found across sexes/genders, age groups (children and adults), and participants from Europe and the United States.
conclusionThese BDD-YBOCS severity cutoffs can be used for clinical and research purposes across different populations but should not be used as the sole basis for important clinical decisions affecting individual patients. The boundary between subclinical and clinical BDD will require further study.
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.