OBJECTIVE: Problems with the current DSM-IV eating disorder (ED) section have resulted in proposed changes toward the upcoming DSM-5 (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/EatingDisorders.aspx). We investigated consequences of these by implementing the proposal in a large naturalistic database. METHOD: Patients were 2,584 children/adolescents and adults enrolled at specialized ED clinics in Sweden. DSM-IV diagnoses anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and "not otherwise specified" examples were compared with DSM-5 anorexia, bulimia, and binge ED, as well as atypical anorexia, subthreshold bulimia, and binge eating, purging disorder, and the residual unspecified category. Assessment methods included a semistructured diagnostic interview and self-ratings of ED and psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: We studied age-separated diagnostic distributions and explained variance in clinical variables associated with the two systems. Results showed some improvement of diagnostic specification as well as a slight increase in explained variance. DISCUSSION: Remaining problems with the proposed changes were also highlighted, and possible further refinement is discussed.
OBJECTIVE: Problems with the current DSM-IV eating disorder (ED) section have resulted in proposed changes toward the upcoming DSM-5 (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/EatingDisorders.aspx). We investigated consequences of these by implementing the proposal in a large naturalistic database. METHOD:Patients were 2,584 children/adolescents and adults enrolled at specialized ED clinics in Sweden. DSM-IV diagnoses anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and "not otherwise specified" examples were compared with DSM-5 anorexia, bulimia, and binge ED, as well as atypical anorexia, subthreshold bulimia, and binge eating, purging disorder, and the residual unspecified category. Assessment methods included a semistructured diagnostic interview and self-ratings of ED and psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: We studied age-separated diagnostic distributions and explained variance in clinical variables associated with the two systems. Results showed some improvement of diagnostic specification as well as a slight increase in explained variance. DISCUSSION: Remaining problems with the proposed changes were also highlighted, and possible further refinement is discussed.
Authors: Brandon K Bellows; Joanne LaFleur; Aaron W C Kamauu; Thomas Ginter; Tyler B Forbush; Stephen Agbor; Dylan Supina; Paul Hodgkins; Scott L DuVall Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Cristin D Runfola; Laura M Thornton; Emily M Pisetsky; Cynthia M Bulik; Andreas Birgegård Journal: Compr Psychiatry Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.735
Authors: Rachel Koren; Alexis E Duncan; Melissa A Munn-Chernoff; Kathleen K Bucholz; Michael T Lynskey; Andrew C Heath; Arpana Agrawal Journal: Psychiatr Genet Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Melanie Schorr; Jennifer J Thomas; Kamryn T Eddy; Laura E Dichtel; Elizabeth A Lawson; Erinne Meenaghan; Margaret Lederfine Paskal; Pouneh K Fazeli; Alexander T Faje; Madhusmita Misra; Anne Klibanski; Karen K Miller Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.861