ArticleEuropean eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association2025
The Thorny Issue of Atypical Anorexia Nervosa: Clinicians' Perspectives on How It Should Be Defined.
Article in European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric characteristics of DSM-5 eating disorder diagnostic criteria: support for a transdiagnostic approach.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- "I could be living a totally different life right now": lived experience and caregiver perspectives on the prevention of eating disorders.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Psychobiological Exercise Response: A Pilot Investigation of a Laboratory Exercise Assessment Paradigm Among Young Women With Eating Disorders.The International journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Using network analysis to personalize treatment for individuals with co-occurring restrictive eating disorders and suicidality: a proof-of-concept study.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Eating Disorders in the Context of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: Current Status and Future Directions.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAtypical Anorexia Nervosa (AAN) is an ill-defined diagnosis. Little is known about how eating disorder clinicians perceive the utility of the diagnosis, and what changes they believe would add to that utility. This qualitative study aimed to explore clinicians' perspectives on refining the DSM-5 AAN diagnosis.
methodsContent analysis of text was used to categorise 47 responses to the questions: "What changes are required to the DSM-5 definition of AAN?", and "How do you think significant weight loss should be defined?".
resultsOver 27% of clinicians advocated removing the AAN diagnosis or combining it with Anorexia Nervosa, while nearly 15% reported concerns about the requirement for 'significant weight loss'. Over 87% of clinicians suggested ways (often inconsistent across clinicians) to define 'significant weight loss', with emphasis on the need for a specified rate (i.e., amount of loss/time) and consideration of physical health impacts.
conclusionClinicians broadly agree that revisions are necessary to the current AAN definition. However, while some propose specific modifications (e.g., defining 'significant weight loss'), others advocate for the complete removal of the diagnosis. The breadth of suggestions for how to define 'significant weight loss' highlights the ongoing lack of consensus on AAN's relevance as a diagnostic entity.
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.