OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between three methods to calculate expected body weight (EBW) for adolescents with eating disorders: (1) BMI percentile, (2) McLaren, and (3) Moore methods. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline information from adolescents seeking treatment of disordered eating at The University of Chicago. Adolescents (N = 373) aged 12 to 18 years (mean = 15.84, SD = 1.72), with anorexia nervosa (n = 130), bulimia nervosa (n = 59), or eating disorder not otherwise specified (n = 184). Concurrence between the BMI percentile, McLaren, and Moore methods was assessed for agreement above or below arbitrary cut points used in relation to hospitalization (75%), diagnosis (85%), and healthy weight (100%). Patterns of absolute discrepancies were examined by height, age, gender, and menstrual status. Limitations to some of these methods allowed comparison between all 3 methods in only 204 participants. RESULTS: Moderate agreement was seen between the 3 methods (κ values, 0.48-0.74), with pairwise total classification accuracy at each cut point ranging from 84% to 98%. The most discrepant calculations were observed among the tallest (>75th percentile) and shortest (<20th percentile) cases and older ages (>16 years). Many of the most discrepant cases fell above and below 85% EBW when comparing the BMI percentile and Moore methods, indicating disagreement on possible diagnosis of anorexia nervosa. CONCLUSIONS: These methods largely agree on percent EBW in terms of clinically significant cut points. However, the McLaren and Moore methods present with limitations, and a commonly agreed-upon method for EBW calculation such as the BMI percentile method is recommended for clinical and research purposes.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the agreement between three methods to calculate expected body weight (EBW) for adolescents with eating disorders: (1) BMI percentile, (2) McLaren, and (3) Moore methods. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline information from adolescents seeking treatment of disordered eating at The University of Chicago. Adolescents (N = 373) aged 12 to 18 years (mean = 15.84, SD = 1.72), with anorexia nervosa (n = 130), bulimia nervosa (n = 59), or eating disorder not otherwise specified (n = 184). Concurrence between the BMI percentile, McLaren, and Moore methods was assessed for agreement above or below arbitrary cut points used in relation to hospitalization (75%), diagnosis (85%), and healthy weight (100%). Patterns of absolute discrepancies were examined by height, age, gender, and menstrual status. Limitations to some of these methods allowed comparison between all 3 methods in only 204 participants. RESULTS: Moderate agreement was seen between the 3 methods (κ values, 0.48-0.74), with pairwise total classification accuracy at each cut point ranging from 84% to 98%. The most discrepant calculations were observed among the tallest (>75th percentile) and shortest (<20th percentile) cases and older ages (>16 years). Many of the most discrepant cases fell above and below 85% EBW when comparing the BMI percentile and Moore methods, indicating disagreement on possible diagnosis of anorexia nervosa. CONCLUSIONS: These methods largely agree on percent EBW in terms of clinically significant cut points. However, the McLaren and Moore methods present with limitations, and a commonly agreed-upon method for EBW calculation such as the BMI percentile method is recommended for clinical and research purposes.
Authors: Neville H Golden; Debra K Katzman; Richard E Kreipe; Sarah L Stevens; Susan M Sawyer; Jane Rees; Dasha Nicholls; Ellen S Rome Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Ellen S Rome; Seth Ammerman; David S Rosen; Richard J Keller; James Lock; Kathleen A Mammel; Julie O'Toole; Jane Mitchell Rees; Mary J Sanders; Susan M Sawyer; Marcie Schneider; Eric Sigel; Tomas Jose Silber Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Hope K Boyd; Lindsay P Bodell; Karen M Jennings; Andrea K Graham; Ross D Crosby; Jennifer E Wildes Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 4.861
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
Authors: Andrea E Kass; Erin C Accurso; Andrea B Goldschmidt; Seeba Anam; Catherine E Byrne; Kate Kinasz; Alexandria Goodyear; Setareh O'Brien; Daniel Le Grange Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Roi Piñeiro; María José Cilleruelo; Milagros García-Hortelano; Marta García-Ascaso; Antonio Medina-Claros; María José Mellado Journal: Indian J Pediatr Date: 2012-05-13 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Kelsey E Hagan; Brittany E Matheson; Nandini Datta; Alexa M L'Insalata; Z Ayotola Onipede; Sasha Gorrell; Sangeeta Mondal; Cara M Bohon; Daniel Le Grange; James D Lock Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 7.723