ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
Validation of the Binge Eating Disorder Questionnaire (BED-Q) in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBinge Eating Disorder (BED) is an eating disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of binge eating accompanied by a sense of loss of control. This study aimed to examine the reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a new instrument, the Binge Eating Disorder Questionnaire (BED-Q), in a sample of 364 individuals diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes (T2D).
methodsA total of 364 participants were included from a Danish cohort of 2,465 individuals with T2D. BED diagnosis was established using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID) based on the DSM-5 criteria, which served as the reference standard. The BED-Q was evaluated for internal consistency and unidimensionality using Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses assessed diagnostic performance, and optimal cut-off values were determined using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value, and Youden's index.
resultsThe BED-Q showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94; average inter-item correlation = 0.68), and confirmatory factor analysis supported a one-factor model with good final model fit (χ² (11) = 8.239, p = 0.692, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.006, RMSEA = 0.000, SRMR = 0.014). ROC analyses indicated good diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.86). A cut-off score of 12 provided optimal discrimination between BED and non-BED cases (Youden's index = 0.71, sensitivity = 0.91, specificity = 0.81, PPV = 0.77, NPV = 0.92).
conclusionsThe BED-Q demonstrated excellent reliability, unidimensionality, and diagnostic accuracy relative to a gold standard structured clinical interview. These findings support the use of the BED-Q as a valid screening instrument for BED. A cut-off score of 12 provided optimal sensitivity and specificity, consistent with DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria. Further validation in diverse populations is recommended.
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.