ArticleEating and weight disorders : EWD2021
The Brazilian version of the DOS for the detection of orthorexia nervosa: transcultural adaptation and validation among dietitians and Nutrition college students.
Article in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthorexia nervosa and social media: A mixed-methods scoping review using a systematic methodology.PloS one · 2026Article
- Orthorexia nervosa in dietitians and dietetics students-prevalence, risk factors, and interventions: a scoping review using a systematic approach.Nutrition reviews · 2025Article
- Maternal Bonding as a Protective Factor for Orthorexia Nervosa Risk in Dietetics Students.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Nutrition knowledge, diet quality and orthorexic behaviors in Polish students-a pre-post repeated cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOrthorexia nervosa has been receiving considerable attention and several tools have been developed to assess it, for instance, the "Düsseldorf Orthorexie Scale" (DOS). Such scale is a validated test to measure orthorexic eating behavior and it has shown good psychometric properties. Therefore, this study aimed to transculturally adapt and validate the Brazilian version of the DOS (DOS-BR).
methodsDOS-BR was obtained using the back-translation process after two reviews done by a focus group and after running a pilot-test (n = 64). A self-report questionnaire was administered to a sample of Brazilian dietitians and Nutrition college students (n = 486). To examine the factor structure of the DOS-BR, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted. The ordinal alpha was examined. Test-retest reliability was evaluated in a sub-sample (n = 159). Convergent validity was assessed by conducting correlation analyses between the DOS-BR and other theoretically related tools (EAT-26 and OCI-R) within the sub-sample.
resultsA three-factor structure was revealed for the DOS-BR properly fitted (KMO = 0.787). The test showed good internal consistency with an ordinal alpha of 0.795, and it also had excellent test-retest reliability of 0.776. DOS-BR median score was 17 (14-22) in Measurement 1 and 19 (17-22) in Measurement 2. The total score had a positive and moderate correlation with eating disorders symptoms (0.488) and a positive and weak correlation with obsessive-compulsive symptoms (0.224).
conclusionThe DOS-BR was culturally and psychometrically adequate for the samples of Brazilian Nutrition-related subjects. The tool is indicated as a reliable alternative to evaluate orthorexia nervosa in Brazilian scenery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Descriptive (cross-sectional) study, Level V.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.