Cited by 173Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Intolerance of uncertainty in eating disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Brown, Melanie, Robinson, Lauren, Campione, Giovanna Cristina, Wuensch, Kelsey, Hildebrandt, Tom, Micali, Nadia·2017·European Eating Disorders Review

Abstract

Intolerance of uncertainty is an empirically supported transdiagnostic construct that may have relevance in understanding eating disorders. We conducted a meta‐analysis and systematic review of intolerance of uncertainty in eating disorders using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We calculated random‐effects standardised mean differences (SMD) for studies utilising the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS) and summarised additional studies descriptively. Women with eating disorders have significantly higher IUS scores compared with healthy controls (SMD = 1.90; 95% C.I. 1.24 to 2.56; p < 0.001). Post hoc meta‐analysis revealed significant differences when comparing women with anorexia nervosa with controls (SMD = 2.16; 95% C.I. 1.14 to 3.18; p < 0.001) and women with bulimia nervosa with controls (SMD = 2.03; 95% C.I. 1.30 to 2.75; p < 0.001). Our synthesis of findings suggests that intolerance of uncertainty may represent a vulnerability and maintenance factor for eating disorders and potential target of cognitive, behavioural, interoceptive and affective symptoms. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/erv.2523

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, M., Robinson, L., Campione, G. C., Wuensch, K., Hildebrandt, T., & Micali, N.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • IRCCS Eugenio Medea (IT)
Corresponding author
Brown, Melanie
Venue
European Eating Disorders Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-23
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
329-343
ISSN
  • 1072-4133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0968
OpenAlex
W2617353623
Cited by
173
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Eating Disorders Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, eating disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, transdiagnostic factors, women, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale
MeSH terms
Anorexia Nervosa, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Female, Humans, Uncertainty, Bulimia Nervosa, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review