ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025
Detecting clinical cases of binge eating in diabetes care: Introducing the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-10 (DEPS-10) for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) reliably identify eating disorder diagnosis in women with type 1 diabetes?Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Trial
- Adult users of a digital binge-eating intervention wanted adaptations for type 2 diabetes: Qualitative study of post-intervention preferences.Research square · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Exploration of the Support Needs of Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Disordered Eating Behaviours.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Article
- Detecting clinical cases of binge eating in diabetes care: Introducing the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-10 (DEPS-10) for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsBinge eating disorders (BED) are underdiagnosed in diabetes care, despite being the most common eating problem for diabetes patients. While diabetes-specific screening for disordered eating behaviour is recommended, the only diabetes-specific instrument available, Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised (DEPS-R), focuses on type 1 diabetes and rapid-acting insulin, limiting its use across diabetes types and treatment regimens. This study aimed to develop a non-insulin version of the DEPS-R and evaluate its screening performance for BED in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
methodsThe DEPS-R was reduced to 10 non-insulin-specific items (DEPS-10). As part of the ongoing pro-mental study, 679 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes completed the baseline survey and took part in diagnostic interviews to assess BED. The screening performance of the DEPS-10 was tested via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and compared with DEPS-R and food-related items of the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID).
resultsN = 24 participants (total = 3.5%; type 1 = 2.9%, type 2 = 4.3%) were diagnosed with a current BED. The DEPS-10 performed well in screening for BED (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.92, p < 0.001) comparable with the DEPS-R (AUC = 0.92, p < 0.001) and exceeded the performance of food-related PAID items (AUC = 0.82, p < 0.001). A cut-off score of ≥15 showed optimal sensitivity and specificity in BED screening. People who met the cut-off had significantly higher BMI and HbA1c and more diabetes distress, depressive and anxiety symptoms.
conclusionsDEPS-10 is a reliable screening instrument for BED. Its associations with glycaemic and mental health outcomes reflect its good construct validity comparable to DEPS-R.
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.