ArticleEating behaviors2024
Validation of the EDDS-5 self-report survey against the SCID-5 diagnostic interview in US veterans.
Article in Eating behaviors, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preliminary development and validation of the Eating Pathology Clinical Outcomes Tracker.Psychological assessment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of our study was to validate the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale (EDDS-5) updated for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) with a diverse veteran population against a clinician-administered interview based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5). Our sample included 343 veterans, 18-75 years, recruited April 2019 to December 2022 who completed the EDDS-5 as well as other eating disorder and mental health measures. A subsample of these veterans received clinical interviews (n = 166), which were used to validate the EDDS-5. We found that despite multiple proposed modifications, the EDDS-5 performed poorly at correctly identifying diverse veterans who were diagnosed as having eating disorders through clinician-administered interviews. The sensitivity was very low, indicating that using the EDDS-5 did not identify many true positives and may also over diagnose those without true eating disorders. The EDDS-5 may not be the best for screening or diagnostic purposes among diverse samples like veterans.
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.