Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28891029›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2017

New Horizons in Measurement: a Review of Novel and Innovative Approaches to Eating-Disorder Assessment.

Kelsie T Forbush, Sara R Gould, Danielle A N Chapa, Brittany K Bohrer, Kelsey E Hagan, Kelsey E Clark, Daria A Sorokina, Victoria L Perko

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Kelsie T ForbushDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA. kforbush@ku.edu.
Sara R GouldChildren's Mercy Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Danielle A N ChapaDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Brittany K BohrerDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Kelsey E HaganDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Kelsey E ClarkDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Daria A SorokinaDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Victoria L PerkoDepartment of Psychology, University of Kansas, Fraser Hall, 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewEating disorders are serious mental-health concerns that will affect over 30 million individuals in the USA at some point in their lives. Eating disorders occur across the lifespan, in a variety of ethnicities and races, in both men and women, and across the socioeconomic spectrum. Given the prevalence and severity of eating disorders, it is important that clinicians and researchers have access to appropriate assessment tools to aid in the early identification and treatment referral, differential diagnosis, treatment planning, and progress monitoring, and to ensure valid research findings. In this review, we describe novel and innovative assessment tools that were developed within the past 5 years for utilization in research and/or clinical practice with individuals with eating disorders. RECENT

findingsWe identified six multidimensional assessments for eating disorders, all of which can be administered online (with some also offering paper-and-pencil versions). Strengths of the measures included good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity. However, in part, due to problematic scale construction methods, certain scales had poor discriminant validity and most were developed and validated in mostly female samples. There are promising new eating disorder measures from which to choose; however, many measures continue to be limited by poor discriminant validity and need additional validation prior to incorporation into routine research and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, DifferentialFeeding and Eating DisordersFemaleHumansMalePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsAssessmentDisordered eatingEating disordersMeasurementReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.