ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025
EDE and EDE-Q: A Call for Field Wide International Collaboration When Revisiting a Classic, Commentary on Reilly et al. (2025).
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In their 2025 article in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, Reilly, Gorrell, Chapa, Drury, Stalvey, Goldschmidt, and le Grange examine the widespread use of the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) and its self-report version, the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q), in assessing eating disorder symptoms. While acknowledging the popularity of these instruments, the authors highlight important limitations-including restricted scope, psychometric shortcomings, and practical challenges such as inconsistent scoring practices and limited applicability across diverse populations. Rather than advocating for the development of entirely new measures, the authors propose building a field-wide consensus to refine existing tools and promote their broader and more consistent use. Reilly et al.'s paper is a timely and valuable contribution to ongoing conversations about assessment practices in the field. In this commentary, we extend their perspective by drawing on previous experiences in the field that support their call to action and suggest that future consensus efforts should built on international experience and collaboration, and ensure that lived experience voices are integral to the process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40468792What 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.