Cited by 209Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Eating disorder screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test characteristics of the SCOFF

Open access
Kutz, Amanda M., Marsh, Alison G., Gunderson, Craig G., Maguen, Shira, Masheb, Robin M.·2020·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Eating disorders affect upwards of 30 million people worldwide and often go undertreated and underdiagnosed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Sick, Control, One, Fat and Food (SCOFF) questionnaire for DSM-5 eating disorders in the general population.Method The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) were followed. A PubMed search was conducted among peer-reviewed articles. Information regarding validation of the SCOFF was required for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.Results The final analysis included 25 studies. The validity of the SCOFF was high across samples with a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.91) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.88). Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the impact of methodology, study quality, and clinical characteristics on diagnostic accuracy. Studies with the highest sensitivity tended to be case-control studies of young women with anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN). Studies which included more men, included those diagnosed with binge eating disorder, and recruited from large community samples tended to have lower sensitivity. Few studies reported on BMI and race/ethnicity; thus, subgroups for these factors could not be examined. No studies used reference standards which assessed all DSM-5 eating disorders.Conclusion This meta-analysis of 25 validation studies demonstrates that the SCOFF is a simple and useful screening tool for young women at risk for AN and BN. However, there is not enough evidence to support utilizing the SCOFF for screening for the range of DSM-5 eating disorders in primary care and community-based settings. Further examination of the validity of the SCOFF or development of a new screening tool, or multiple tools, to screen for the range of DSM-5 eating disorders heterogenous populations is warranted.Trial registration This study is registered online with PROSPERO (CRD42018089906).

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 · 10.1007/s11606-019-05478-6

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A recently published meta-analysis reported a pooled sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 83% for SCOFF using full-syndrome eating disorders or other established eating disorder questionnaires as reference.

    “A recently published meta-analysis reported a pooled sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 83% using full-syndrome eating disorders or other established eating disorder questionnaires as reference [40].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rueda GJ, et al. Validation of the SCOFF questionnaire for screening the eating behaviour disorders of adolescents in school. Aten Primaria. 2005;35(2):89-94.
  2. Wilson MC, Henderson MC, Smetana GW. Chapter 5. Evidence-Based Clinical Decision Making. In: Henderson MC, Tierney LM, Jr., Smetana GW. eds. The Patient History: An Evidence-Based Approach to Differential Diagnosis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kutz, A. M., Marsh, A. G., Gunderson, C. G., Maguen, S., & Masheb, R. M.
Affiliations
  • VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System (US)
  • VA Connecticut Healthcare System (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Kutz, Amanda M.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2019-11-08
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
885-893
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2983584659
Cited by
209
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 6
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Services Research and Development (CIN 13-407)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
SCOFF questionnaire, eating disorder screening, diagnostic accuracy, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, young women, primary care, community-based screening, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Anorexia Nervosa, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Surveys and Questionnaires

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