ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025
Assessing Severity in Anorexia Nervosa Using Alternative Criteria to the DSM-5 in a Cross-Sectional Study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Severity in Anorexia Nervosa Using Alternative Criteria to the DSM-5 in a Cross-Sectional Study.The International journal of eating disorders · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared overvaluation of weight and shape (OWS), drive for thinness (DT), and their combination (OWS-DT) as alternative severity classifications for anorexia nervosa (AN) to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) severity classification.
method312 AN treatment-seeking outpatients (mean age = 26.8, SD = 10.2, mean body mass index = 17.3, SD = 2.4) were classified using BMI-based DSM-5 criteria (mild/moderate/severe/extreme), OWS (no/yes), DT (no/yes), and OWS-DT combination (neither/one or the other/both). These classifications were evaluated based on associations with clinical and functional severity indicators, including psychiatric comorbidities, psychopathology via the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire and the Eating Disorder Inventory, functional impairment via the Eating Disorders Quality-of-Life Questionnaire and Work-and-Social Adjustment Scale, and biological markers.
resultsOWS and DT separately were strongly and positively associated with psychiatric comorbidities, psychopathology, and functional impairment. Severity increased across OWS-DT groups, distinguishing mild (neither), moderate (mainly OWS), and severe (both OWS and DT). DT rarely appeared without OWS. DSM-5 classification alone had limited clinical relevance, primarily reflecting restriction of energy intake. No significant differences emerged across severity classifications for biological markers. DISCUSSION: Findings offer limited support for DSM-5 severity criteria alone. OWS and DT showed clearer clinical utility, with the OWS-DT combination more effectively identifying severity. A stepwise model-screening for OWS followed by DT assessment-may best capture severity in clinical settings.
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.