Fig 1.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic review.
Fig 2.
2a and 2b. Comparison between Factor and Network Model. Schematic representation of factor model (a) and network model (b) of eating disorders (simplified). While in the first case symptoms (white rectangles) are considered manifestations of some common underlying factor (e.g., the eating disorder psychopathology [cyan ellipse]), according to the network model symptoms are conceptualized as mutually interacting and reciprocally reinforcing elements of a complex network where ED-specific symptoms (white rectangles in the red dashed box) mutually influence non-specific ones (yellow rectangles), such as external events (orange dashed box) or comorbidities (cyan ellipses in the blue dashed box). Hence, symptoms are seen as causally active components of the mental disorder instead of passive receptors of its causal influence.
Fig 3.
Psychometric network analysis workflow.
Scheme of the typical workflow of psychometric network analysis. Once the research question has been defined (also according to the availability of data), the main steps to be performed are: 1. Network estimation, that is, construction of the network. 2. Network description, that is, identification of important symptoms. 3. Network stability analysis, that is, assessment of the robustness of results. Together, these will allow to infer significant interpretation that should be employed in clinical treatment.
Table 1.
Summary of the information of major interest of the 57 studies included in the systematic review.
Table 2.
Definition and interpretation of common centrality measures.
Table 3.
Central symptoms in psychopathology networks.
Table 4.
Bridge symptoms between eating disorders and other psychopathologies.
Table 5.
Interaction between eating disorders and the external field.
Table 6.
Network comparison.