A systematic review and meta-analysis on the DSM-5 severity specifiers for eating disorders
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The DSM-5 introduced severity indicies for the first time. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and synthesis the frequency of each DSM-5 severity categories (i.e., mild, moderate, severe and extreme severe) for Anorexia Nervosa (AN), Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and Binge Eating Disorders (BED), and to evaluate studies that assess the clinical utility of these severity specifiers for all eating disorders (ED) subtypes. Methods: Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were used to identify for both academic and grey literature published from 2013 until July 8, 2020. Twenty-five studies were retrieved for the systematic review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and up to six studies were qualified for meta-analysis Results: We found limited support for the current DSM-5 severity ratings for all ED indices, as the majority of ED severity groups were not significantly distinguishable in overall ED psychopathology (mean effect size ranged from .02 to .5). The value of the DSM-5 severity ratings was further devalued as 56.91% to 80.52% of individuals with AN, BN, and BED were categorized into mild and moderate groups. However, there was significant heterogeneity between the studies (p< .001), and some of these heterogeneities were explained by differences in study settings and measurement of eating disorder psychopathology. Conclusions: Overall, the current study provided little support for the DSM-5 severity ratings for EDs, thus it is suggested that further exploration in alternative severity classification approach is needed. Disclosure: No significant relationships.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wong, V. Z., & Lowe, M. R. (2024) · European Eating Disorders Review · doi:10.1002/erv.3077 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dang, A., Giles, S., Fernandez-Aranda, F., Kiropoulos, L., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Instituto Salud Carlos III
- Deakin University
- Corresponding author
- Dang, A.
- Venue
- European Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- S704-S704
- ISSN
- 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
- 1778-3585
- PMC
- PMC9480349
- OpenAlex
- W3194792246
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- eating disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, severity classification, eating disorder psychopathology, clinical utility
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