Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Muscle dysmorphia: A systematic and meta-analytic review of the literature to assess diagnostic validity

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Cooper, Marita
Eddy, Kamryn
Thomas, Jennifer
Franko, Debra L
Carron-Arthur, Brad
Keshishian, Ani
Griffiths, Kathy

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Abstract

Objective Although muscle dysmorphia (MD) is a new addition to DSM‐5 as a specifier of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), previous studies have treated MD as a stand‐alone diagnosis. We aimed to assess the validity of MD as a stand‐alone diagnosis via systematic and meta‐analytic review of MD literature using both Robins and Guze criteria and additional criteria from Kendler. Method We performed a systematic search of ProQuest, PsycInfo, and PubMed databases for the period of January 1993 to October 2019 resulting in 40 papers to examine Robins and Guze's criteria (clinical picture) as well as those added by Kendler (antecedent validators; concurrent validators; predictive validators). Results We identified two distinct symptomatic presentations of MD using cluster analysis, a behavioral type and cognitive/behavioral type. For examining the concurrent validators, quantitative meta‐analyses differentiated MD populations from controls; however, results were inconclusive in delineating MD from existing disorders. For assessing antecedent and predictive validators, the symptomatic profiles, treatment response, and familial links for MD were similar to those for BDD and for eating disorders. Discussion We found preliminary support for MD as a clinically valid presentation, but insufficient evidence to determine whether it is best categorized as a specifier of BDD or unique psychiatric condition.

Description

Citation

Source

International Journal of Eating Disorders

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2099-01-31