Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40079685›Full record

ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025

Correspondence between the Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised and eating disorder diagnosis: Examining the current cut-off for clinically significant eating disorder symptoms.

Ashley A Moskovich, Caitrin Murphy, Samantha Schram, Francesca Scheiber, Rhonda M Merwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Psychological Impact of Type 1 Diabetes: A Focus on Disordered Eating Behavior in Female Adolescents.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025
    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.

Ashley A MoskovichDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Caitrin MurphyDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Samantha SchramThe Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Francesca ScheiberDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1879-2694
Rhonda M MerwinDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Eating Disorders in Type 1 Diabetes: Mechanisms of ComorbidityR01DK089329 · NIDDK · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MERWIN, RHONDA M · 2011 to 2013
$1.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK089329NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK089329
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsEating disorders (EDs) are associated with severe health complications and early death in individuals with type 1 diabetes, making the accurate detection of EDs crucial so that treatment can be initiated. The Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) is commonly used to identify individuals with type 1 diabetes with a probable ED, with scores ≥20 recommended as a clinical cut-off. However, the correspondence between a score ≥20 and an ED diagnosis has yet to be examined. This study examines the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the DEPS-R ≥20 for detecting EDs in a sample of adults with type 1 diabetes participating in a study of eating and weight concerns.

methodsAdults with type 1 diabetes (N = 83) completed the DEPS-R and a structured diagnostic ED interview (Eating Disorder Examination [EDE]). Each participant's EDE and DEPS-R scores were dichotomized (EDE: 1 = ED diagnosis, 0 = otherwise; DEPS-R: 1 = DEPS-R ≥20, 0 = otherwise) and DEPS-R ≥20 accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for identifying EDs were calculated. A logistic regression was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the dichotomized EDE and DEPS-R scores.

resultsA DEPS-R ≥20 accurately detected the presence or absence of an ED in 81.8% of the cases, with a sensitivity of 76.7% and a specificity of 88.2%. The logistic regression exhibited a significant association between the EDE and DEPS-R binary variables (coefficient estimate = 3.2, 95% CI [2.0, 4.6]).

conclusionsWhile the majority of individuals with an ED were identified using DEPS-R ≥20, a subset failed to be detected. Clinicians should keep this in mind when using the DEPS-R and may consider additional screening methods.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Feeding and Eating DisordersAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultDiabetes Eating Problems Survey–Revised (DEPS‐R)eating disorderstype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40079685
PMCPMC12097840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.