Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25504212›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2015

Validation of the SCOFF questionnaire for eating disorders in a multiethnic general population sample.

Francesca Solmi, Stephani L Hatch, Matthew Hotopf, Janet Treasure, Nadia Micali

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Extent of Eating Disorders and Comorbid Psychopathology Among Adolescent School Pupils.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 country.

Francesca SolmiBehavioural and Brain Sciences Unit, Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephani L Hatch
Matthew Hotopf
Janet Treasure
Nadia Micali
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aimed to validate the SCOFF, an eating disorders (ED) screening questionnaire, in a multiethnic general population sample of adults.

methodA two-stage design was employed using the South East London Community Health Study phases I and II data. A total of 1,669 participants were screened using the SCOFF in SELCoHI, and 145 were administrated an ED clinical interview in SELCoHII. We explored the diagnostic validity of the questionnaire restricting to the 145 individuals with the clinical questionnaire.

resultsSensitivity and specificity of the SCOFF were 53.7 and 93.5%, respectively.

conclusionThe SCOFF showed good levels of specificity but low sensitivity, resulting in a high percentage of false negatives. Given the low sensitivity found in our sample the SCOFF is likely to be a suboptimal measure for the identification of ED in the community.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedFeeding and Eating DisordersFemaleHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultdiagnostic validityeating disordersSCOFF

Identifiers

PMID25504212
PMCPMC4407952
OpenAlexW1645350952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 OpenQuestion graph.