BACKGROUND: DSM-IV cites <85% of expected body weight (EBW) as a guideline for the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (AN) but does not require a specific method for calculating EBW. The purpose of the present study was to determine the degree to which weight cut-off calculations vary across studies, and to evaluate whether differential cut-offs lead to discrepancies in the prevalence of individuals who are eligible for the AN diagnosis. METHOD: Two coders independently recorded the EBW calculation methods from 99 studies that either (a) compared individuals with AN to those with subclinical eating disorders or (b) conducted AN treatment trials. Each weight cut-off was applied to a nationally representative (n=12001) and treatment-seeking (n=189) sample to determine the impact of EBW calculation on the proportion who met the AN weight criterion. RESULTS: Coders identified 10 different EBW methods, each of which produced different weight cut-offs for the diagnosis of AN. Although only 0.23% of the national sample met the lowest cut-off, this number increased 43-fold to 10.10% under the highest cut-off. Similarly, only 48.1% of treatment seekers met the lowest cut-off, whereas 89.4% met the highest. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variance across studies in the determination of the AN weight cut-off. Discrepancies substantially affect the proportion of individuals who are eligible for diagnosis, treatment and insurance reimbursement. However, differences may not be fully appreciated because the ubiquitous citation of the 85% criterion creates a sense of false consensus.
BACKGROUND: DSM-IV cites <85% of expected body weight (EBW) as a guideline for the diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (AN) but does not require a specific method for calculating EBW. The purpose of the present study was to determine the degree to which weight cut-off calculations vary across studies, and to evaluate whether differential cut-offs lead to discrepancies in the prevalence of individuals who are eligible for the AN diagnosis. METHOD: Two coders independently recorded the EBW calculation methods from 99 studies that either (a) compared individuals with AN to those with subclinical eating disorders or (b) conducted AN treatment trials. Each weight cut-off was applied to a nationally representative (n=12001) and treatment-seeking (n=189) sample to determine the impact of EBW calculation on the proportion who met the AN weight criterion. RESULTS: Coders identified 10 different EBW methods, each of which produced different weight cut-offs for the diagnosis of AN. Although only 0.23% of the national sample met the lowest cut-off, this number increased 43-fold to 10.10% under the highest cut-off. Similarly, only 48.1% of treatment seekers met the lowest cut-off, whereas 89.4% met the highest. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variance across studies in the determination of the AN weight cut-off. Discrepancies substantially affect the proportion of individuals who are eligible for diagnosis, treatment and insurance reimbursement. However, differences may not be fully appreciated because the ubiquitous citation of the 85% criterion creates a sense of false consensus.
Authors: Christina A Roberto; Joanna Steinglass; Laurel E S Mayer; Evelyn Attia; B Timothy Walsh Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: P E Garfinkel; E Lin; P Goering; C Spegg; D Goldbloom; S Kennedy; A S Kaplan; D B Woodside Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Allison A Hedley; Cynthia L Ogden; Clifford L Johnson; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephanie G Harshman; Jenny Jo; Megan Kuhnle; Kristine Hauser; Helen Burton Murray; Kendra R Becker; Madhusmita Misra; Kamryn T Eddy; Nadia Micali; Elizabeth A Lawson; Jennifer J Thomas Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 4.384