4.4 Article

DSM-5 reduces the proportion of ednos cases: Evidence from community samples

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 60-65

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22040

Keywords

EDNOS; DSM-5; epidemiology; classification

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia/Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal [PTDC/PSI-PCL/099981/2008]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/PSI-PCL/099981/2008] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS) constitute the most common eating disorder among those seeking treatment at eating disorder facilities; they are even more common among persons with eating disorders the community. This study compares the impact of applying the revised diagnostic criteria proposed by the DSM-5 workgroup, and the broad categories for the diagnosis of eating disorders (BCD-ED) proposed by Walsh and Sysko on the prevalence of EDNOS. Method: In two nationwide epidemiological studies the prevalence of eating disorders among female high school (n = 2,028) and university students (n = 1,020) was examined using DSM-IV criteria. We used a two-stage design, administering a questionnaire in the first stage and an interview in the second stage. Results: In the combined samples 118 cases of eating disorders (DSM-IV) were detected, of which 86 were diagnosed as EDNOS (72.9%). Application of the DSM-5 criteria reduced the number of EDNOS cases to 60 (50.8%) or to 52 (44%), when using a BMI <18.5 as cutoff for significantly low weight criterion in AN; with the use of BCD-ED criteria, only 5 (4.2%) cases of EDNOS remained. Discussion: Proposed criteria set for DSM-5 substantially reduce the number of EDNOS cases. However, the BCD-ED scheme further reduces its proportion, almost eliminating it. (C) 2012 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2013)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available