Evidence Hub

A systematic review of reviews of neurocognitive functioning in eating disorders: The state-of-the-literature and future directions

Smith KE, Mason TB, Johnson JS, Lavender JM, Wonderlich SA

The International journal of eating disorders, 2018

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In recent years there has been increasing clinical and empirical interest in neurocognitive functioning in eating disorders (EDs), which has resulted in numerous quantitative and qualitative reviews. However, there has yet to be a comprehensive synthesis or critical review of this literature to identify future directions to advance the field in this area. Therefore the aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to (a) characterize the existing literature on neurocognitive functioning in EDs based on recent reviews (i.e., published since 2010), (b) describe related limitations, and (c) suggest avenues for future research to address gaps in the current literature.

METHOD: Electronic databases were queried for reviews of neurocognitive domains (i.e., inhibitory control, decision-making, central coherence, set-shifting, working memory, and attention bias) in EDs, which identified 28 systematic and meta-analytic reviews.

RESULTS: Broadly, the literature indicates deficits across these neurocognitive domains in EDs, though heterogeneity was noted in the magnitude of these effects, which varied to some extent across ED subtypes, sample characteristics, and methodological approaches.

DISCUSSION: While these reviews have generally suggested varying patterns of neurocognitive deficits across EDs, there remain critical limitations regarding the methodological quality of these studies (e.g., the lack of prospective designs, consideration of confounding…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free