ArticlePloS one2026
Validated strategies for screening for eating disorders in primary health care: A scoping review with a focus on adolescents and adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eating disorders are serious, complex, and potentially chronic psychiatric conditions that affect millions of people worldwide. Primary health care plays a strategic role in the early identification and referral, helping to reduce complications, mortality, and health system burden. This scoping review aimed to map the available evidence on validated strategies for screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults in primary care. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, with a protocol registered in the Open Science Framework (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/498FU). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and gray literature in October 2024. Data selection and extraction were performed by peer reviewers, and findings were synthesized narratively, with tables and figures. Of 2977 documents and 159 full texts assessed, 77 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 56 empirical and 21 nonempirical studies. Eleven validated screening instruments were identified, most frequently the SCOFF followed by the EDE-Q. Most studies used self-administered instruments before the consultation, with completion times ranging from 30 seconds to 15 minutes. Implementation strategies commonly involved the provision of materials and training for health professionals. Instrument robustness was primarily assessed through validity and reliability measures. The EDS-PC, EAT-26 and ADO-BED showed the highest sensitivity (100%), while the SCOFF demonstrated the highest specificity (94.4%). Feasibility was investigated through the identification of cases, team actions, professionals' perceptions, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Despite the potential of several instruments, robust evidence on their validity, reliability, and applicability remains limited, particularly in low-and middle-income settings, among underrepresented and adolescent's populations. Structural and training barriers hinder the effective implementation of screening, highlighting the need for articulated actions between professionals, services, and public policies.
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.