Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40125915›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025

Rethinking Screening, and Considering Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Clinical Presentation of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID): A Commentary Building Upon Presseller et al. (2024).

Sandra Mulkens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Sandra MulkensDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0237-1628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is increasingly recognized globally, yet its clinical presentation may vary across cultures. This commentary highlights the importance of considering cultural context in the assessment of ARFID. We begin by reflecting on a study by Presseller et al. which examines the utility of the nine-item ARFID screen (NIAS) in a large Swedish sample, finding that the NIAS alone may not adequately differentiate ARFID from eating disorders driven by shape/weight concerns. Building upon this, we broaden the discussion to include the potential comorbidity of ARFID and other eating disorders driven by weight/shape concern, which also requires additional assessment. Furthermore, we explore potential cross-cultural similarities and differences in ARFID presentation, drawing on clinical experience in the Netherlands, Europe, and globally. Factors such as cultural norms surrounding eating, the acceptability of expressing feeding difficulties, and food availability itself may all influence how ARFID manifests. A deeper understanding of these cultural nuances is essential for accurate diagnosis, culturally sensitive treatment approaches, and ultimately, improved outcomes for individuals with ARFID worldwide. The nuanced interplay of cultural factors and diagnostic tools underscores the imperative for tailored approaches in addressing ARFID across diverse populations.

Indexed as

Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake DisorderCross-Cultural ComparisonFeeding and Eating DisordersHumansanorexia nervosaARFIDavoidant/restrictive food intake disordercomorbiditycross‐cultural similaritiesdiagnosticsEDE‐QNIASnine‐item ARFID screenPARDI

Identifiers

PMID40125915
PMCPMC12138852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.