Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rumination and eating disorder psychopathology: A meta-analysis

Open access
Smith, Kathryn E., Mason, Tyler B., Lavender, Jason M.·2018·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Rumination is a cognitive process involving repetitive thoughts about negative experiences and emotions and is associated with psychopathology. Rumination has been implicated in mood and anxiety disorders, and there is a growing body of research on rumination in relation to eating disorder (ED) psychopathology. The current meta-analytic review focused on the literature addressing rumination and ED psychopathology. A comprehensive search process identified 38 studies, which primarily used cross-sectional designs with non-clinical samples. Results demonstrated that rumination was concurrently (r=.33) and prospectively (r=.22-.23) associated with ED psychopathology, and that groups with ED psychopathology evidenced higher levels of rumination compared to non-ED control groups (g=.95), though no significant differences in rumination were observed when comparing anorexia nervosa to bulimia nervosa groups (g=.09). In addition, a narrative review of five experimental studies suggested that rumination in response to ED-related stimuli was related to increased negative affect and negative body-related cognitions across clinical and non-clinical samples. The type of rumination and sample population emerged as moderators of effect sizes, such that larger effects were observed among samples using ED-specific measures of rumination and heterogeneous samples compared to only non-clinical samples. Taken together, this literature demonstrates that rumination is a salient process in ED psychopathology, though the literature is characterized by methodological limitations and the need for more fully elaborated theories on the role of rumination in EDs. Findings are discussed in the context of existing models of rumination and ED psychopathology, with suggestions for future research in this area.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.03.004

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 184

Metadata

Authors
Smith, K. E., Mason, T. B., & Lavender, J. M.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
61
Pages
9-23
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794493435
Cited by
184
References
29
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rumination and eating disorder psychopathology: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.03.004
The paper
Smith, K. E., Mason, T. B., & Lavender, J. M. (2018). Rumination and eating disorder psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.03.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.