Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38652332›Full record

SynthesisEating and weight disorders : EWD2024

The use and misuse of the SCOFF screening measure over two decades: a systematic literature review.

Amy Coop, Amelia Clark, John Morgan, Fiona Reid, J Hubert Lacey

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Bulimia nervosa.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Amy CoopSchoen Clinic Newbridge, Birmingham, UK.
Amelia ClarkSchoen Clinic Chelsea, London, UK.
John MorganSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Fiona ReidKing's College, London, UK.
J Hubert LaceySt George's, University of London, London, UK. hlacey@sgul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7302-6496

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe SCOFF questionnaire was designed as a simple, memorable screening tool to raise suspicion that a person might have an eating disorder. It is over 20 years since the creation of the SCOFF, during which time it has been widely used. Considering this, we wish to review the use of the SCOFF in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and to assess whether it is being used appropriately in the manner in which it was originally devised and tested.

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and all search strategies and methods were determined before the onset of the study. PubMed and Wiley Online Library were searched using the terms SCOFF and eating. Two reviewers were involved in the reviewing process. Criteria for appropriate use of the SCOFF were formalised with the tool's original authors.

results180 articles were included in the final review. 48 articles had used the SCOFF appropriately, 117 articles inappropriately and 15 articles had been mixed in the appropriateness of their use.

conclusionThis systematic review highlights the inappropriate use of the SCOFF in diverse languages and settings. When used correctly the SCOFF has made a significant contribution to the understanding of eating disorders and its simplicity has been applauded and led to widespread use. However in over two-thirds of studies, the use of the SCOFF was inappropriate and the paper highlights how and in what way it was misused, Guidelines for the appropriate use of the SCOFF are stated. Future validation and avenues of research are suggested. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersMass ScreeningHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAnorexia nervosaBulimia nervosaEating disordersQuestionnairesSCOFFScreening

Identifiers

PMID38652332
PMCPMC11039549

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.