Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35499780›Full record

ArticleArchives of women's mental health2022

Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool.

Elizabeth A Claydon, Christa L Lilly, Jordan X Ceglar, Omar F Dueñas-Garcia

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of women's mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth A ClaydonDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, West Virginia University School of Public Health, 64 Medical Center Drive, P.O. Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA. elizabeth.claydon@hsc.wvu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8153-5132
Christa L LillyDepartment of Biostatistics, West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0009-0638
Jordan X CeglarDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, West Virginia University School of Public Health, 64 Medical Center Drive, P.O. Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA.
Omar F Dueñas-GarciaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1663-8415
West Virginia University · US

Funding

West Virginia IDEA-CTRU54GM104942 · NIGMS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI JUDITH FEINBERG · 2012 to 2026
$81.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid screening tools are useful for identifying at-risk patients and referring them for further assessment and treatment, but none exist that consider the unique medical needs of pregnant women with eating disorders (EDs). There is a need for a rapid, sensitive, and specific screening tool that can be used to identify a potential ED in pregnancy. We started with a set of 25 questions, developed from our qualitative work along with other ED screening tools, and tested on a development (n = 190) and validation sample (n = 167). Statistical analysis included factor analysis and logistic regressions with ROC curves. Development and validation samples were combined for trimester analysis (n = 357). Refining the tool to 12 items demonstrated strong internal reliability (development alpha = 0.95, validation alpha = 0.91). With correlated errors, questions demonstrated acceptable CFA fit (development: GFI: 0.91, RMSEA: 0.10, NNFI: 0.95; validation: GFI: 0.85, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.86). Similar fits were seen by trimester: first trimester n = 127, GFI: 0.89, RMSEA: 0.12, NNFI: 0.94; second trimester n = 150, GFI: 0.83, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.88; third trimester n = 80, GFI: 0.99, NNFI: 0.99. Validation against current ED diagnosis demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and specificity using a cutoff of 39 (development sensitivity = 80.7%, specificity = 79.7%, OR = 16.42, 95% CI: 7.51, 35.88; validation sensitivity = 69.2%, specificity = 86.5%, OR: 17.43, 95% CI: 6.46, 47.01). Findings suggest the PEBS tool can reliably and sensitively detect EDs across pregnancy trimesters with 12 questions. A further implication of this work is to reduce health and mental health treatment disparities through this standard and rapid screening measure to ensure early identification and treatment.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersPregnancy TrimestersFactor Analysis, StatisticalFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansPregnancyPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAnorexia nervosaBinge eating disorderBulimia nervosaFeeding and eating disordersMental healthPregnancyPregnancy trimestersPsychometricsReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID35499780
PMCPMC9058752
OpenAlexW4225271000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.