Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology, course, and outcome of eating disorders

Smink, Frédérique R.E., van Hoeken, Daphne, Hoek, Hans W.·2013·Current Opinion in Psychiatry
DOI 10.1097/yco.0b013e328365a24f
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent literature about the epidemiology, course, and outcome of eating disorders in accordance with the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). RECENT FINDINGS: The residual category 'eating disorder not otherwise specified' (EDNOS) was the most common DSM-IV eating disorder diagnosis in both clinical and community samples. Several studies have confirmed that the DSM-5 criteria for eating disorders effectively reduce the proportion of EDNOS diagnoses. The lifetime prevalence of DSM-5 anorexia nervosa among women might be up to 4%, and of bulimia nervosa 2%. In a cross-national survey, the average lifetime prevalence of binge eating disorder (BED) was 2%. Both anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are associated with increased mortality. Data on long-term outcome, including mortality, are limited for BED. Follow-up studies of BED are scarce; remission rates in randomized controlled trials ranged from 19 to 65% across studies. On a community level, 5-year recovery rates for DSM-5 anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are 69 and 55%, respectively; little is known about the course and outcome of BED in the community. SUMMARY: Applying the DSM-5 criteria effectively reduces the frequency of the residual diagnosis EDNOS, by lowering the threshold for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, and adding BED as a specified eating disorder. Course and outcome studies of both anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa show that no significant differences exist between DSM-5 and DSM-IV definitions.

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 · 10.1097/yco.0b013e328365a24f

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Smink, F. R. E., van Hoeken, D., & Hoek, H. W.
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2013-11
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
543-548
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/yco.0b013e328365a24f
OpenAlex
W2017222769
Cited by
507
References
11
FWCI
38.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.