ArticleJournal of athletic training2025
Risk of Low Energy Availability, Disordered Eating, and Menstrual Dysfunction in Female Collegiate Runners.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mental health in elite athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement (2026).British journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextCollegiate female distance runners may be at risk for low energy availability (LEA) due to increased exercise energy expenditure with or without decreased energy intake. Furthermore, this population has an increased risk of disordered eating (DE), which can lead to LEA and negative health consequences, such as menstrual dysfunction (MD).
objectiveTo (1) investigate risk of LEA, DE, and MD; (2) compare DE, training volume, and weight dissatisfaction between female collegiate runners at risk and those not at risk for LEA; and (3) compare the risk for LEA between National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, and III female collegiate runners.
designCross-sectional study.
settingFree-living conditions. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 287 female runners who competed on a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, II, or III cross-country team, track team, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Participants completed a 45-item questionnaire that included the Low Energy Availability in Females Questionnaire (LEAF-Q) and the Disordered Eating Screen for Athletes (DESA-6).
resultsWe observed that 54.4% (n = 156) of runners were at risk for LEA (LEAF-Q score ≥ 8), 40.8% (n = 117) were at risk for DE (DESA-6 score ≥ 3), and 56.5% (n = 162) reported MD (LEAF-Q menstrual function subsection score ≥ 4). Athletes at risk for LEA had higher DESA-6 scores than athletes not at risk for LEA (P < .001). Athletes at risk for LEA had greater weight dissatisfaction than those not at risk for LEA ( = 15.92, P = .001). Higher weekly training volume was not associated with risk for LEA ( = 4.20, P = .11).
conclusionsA substantial percentage of collegiate female runners were found to be at risk for LEA and DE and to report MD. These findings demonstrate that the risks for DE, MD, and weight dissatisfaction are associated with risk for LEA.
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.