Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31940308›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Avoid jumping to conclusions under uncertainty in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Sharon Morein-Zamir, Sonia Shapher, Julia Gasull-Camos, Naomi A Fineberg, Trevor W Robbins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Active information sampling in health and disease.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Cognitive Vulnerability for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Qualitative Review.Clinical psychology : a publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Electroencephalographic Correlates of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Sharon Morein-ZamirSchool of Psychology and Sports Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6919-6692
Sonia ShapherHertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, NHS; University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Julia Gasull-CamosBehavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute; Department of Psychology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0578-8311
Naomi A FinebergHertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, NHS; University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Trevor W RobbinsBehavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute; Department of Psychology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104631/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High levels of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) could contribute to abnormal decision making in uncertain situations. Patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) often report high IU, indecisiveness and the need to seek greater certainty before making decisions. The Beads task is a commonly used task assessing the degree of information gathering prior to making a decision and so would be predicted to show impairments in OCD patients. Results to date have found mixed support for this, possibility due to methodological issues. Here, a group of OCD patients (n = 50) with no comorbidities was compared with age, gender, and verbal-IQ matched controls (n = 50) on the most commonly used version of the Beads task. An independent sample of healthy volunteers with high versus low OC symptoms, and high versus low IU were also assessed (n = 125). There was no evidence that patients with OCD differed from control volunteers in the degree of information gathering prior to making a decision. Medication status and age did not appear to mediate performance. Similarly, there were no association in healthy volunteers between task performance and OC or IU characteristics. Additional measures examining the degree of certainty initially showed support for greater uncertainty in patients, but this was due to deviations from task instructions in a subset of patients. We conclude that despite the large sample size and good matching between groups, the Beads task in its most widely used form is not a useful measure of IU or of information gathering in OCD. The results argue against a robust behavioural difference in OCD when compared to controls. Recommendations for future studies employing the task are discussed.

Indexed as

Decision MakingUncertaintyAdultCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsObsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Identifiers

PMID31940308
PMCPMC6961894
OpenAlexW3000481273

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.