Ability of EDI-2 and EDI-3 to correctly identify patients and subjects at risk for eating disorders

Segura-Garcìa, Cristina; Aloi, Matteo; Rania, Marianna; Ciambrone, Paola; Palmieri, Antonella; Pugliese, Valentina; Moruno, Antonio José Ruiz; Fazio, Pasquale De

doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2015.06.010

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…EDI‐2 has been shown to be a valid measure for assessing the ED risk both in women and men although it has been mainly validated in women. EDI‐2 has been shown to identify only half of clinical ED cases, however it still has a very high overall accuracy in detecting individuals at risk . There are no published data that would enable us to directly quantify the difference we observed in the EDI‐2 scores in terms of risk of manifest EDs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…EDI-2 has been shown to identify only half of clinical ED cases, however it still has a very high overall accuracy in detecting individuals at risk. 44 There are no published data that would enable us to directly quantify the difference we observed in the EDI-2 scores in terms of risk of manifest EDs. The strengths of our study include this widely validated measure and large body of data generalizable to the wider community.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Body image and eating behavior in young adults born preterm

Matinolli

Männistö

Sipola-Leppänen

et al. 2016

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Previous studies have suggested that people born preterm have increased rates of eating disorders (ED). However, a recent study suggested lower levels of ED‐related symptoms in the extreme group of adults born preterm with very low birth weight (<1,500 g). We examined symptoms related to EDs in adults born early (<34 weeks of gestational age) or late (34 to <37 weeks of gestational age) preterm. Methods We studied young adults (mean age 24.1 years) from two birth cohorts: ESTER (Northern Finland 1985–1989) and AYLS (Uusimaa, Finland, 1985–1986). Of the participants, 185 were born early preterm, 348 late preterm, and 637 were term‐born controls (N = 1,170). They completed three subscales of the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI)−2, including Drive for Thinness (DT), Body Dissatisfaction (BD), and Bulimia (B). Group differences were examined by linear regression. Results Young women born early preterm scored 4.1 points (95% CI −8.0, −0.2, P =.04) lower in summed EDI subscale scores than women born at term, when adjusted for age and cohort. This difference was observed also in DT and BD but not for B subscales. The differences persisted after adjustments for current, pre‐ and neonatal characteristics. We did not observe differences in EDI scores among men or women born late preterm when compared to controls. Discussion Women born early preterm have significantly fewer symptoms related to EDs in early adulthood when compared to their peers born at term, which may protect from developing an ED. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (Int J Eat Disord 2016; 49:572–580)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Body image and eating behavior in young adults born preterm

Matinolli

Männistö

Sipola-Leppänen

et al. 2016

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Utilization of different assessment tools commonly yields variance in results. For example, discordance in diagnoses rates between different questionnaires was found in alcohol use disorders (Mewton, Slade, McBride, Grove, & Teesson, ), tobacco dependence (Mwenifumbo & Tyndale, ) and other psychiatric disorders such as depression (Maske et al, ) and eating disorders (Segura‐Garcia et al, ). In the context of problematic opioid use, discordance in diagnoses rates using different questionnaires was found in several previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and comparison of tools for diagnosing problematic prescription opioid use among chronic pain patients

Kovatch

Feingold

Elkana

et al. 2016

Int J Methods Psych Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prescription opioid medications are commonly used for the treatment of chronic pain. Assessments of problematic opioid use among pain patients are inconsistent across studies, partially due to differences between various measures. Therefore, the most appropriate measure to use is often unclear. In this study we assessed problematic opioid use in a sample of 551 individuals receiving treatment for chronic pain, using three questionnaires: the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule - Fourth Edition (AUDADIS-IV), the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) questionnaire and Portenoy's criteria (PC). These questionnaires yielded discordant positive rates of problematic use: 52.6%, 28.7%, and 17.1%, respectively, which did not change substantially when excluding AUDADIS-IV criteria of physical symptoms of tolerance and withdrawal. Although these three questionnaires share some statistically correlated content-based congruent questions, positive response rates to them were significantly different based on construction features, including questionnaires' referred time-frame, wording of questions and response alternatives. The findings of the present study illustrate strengths and limitations of the AUDADIS-IV, COMM and PC in diagnosing problematic opioid use in a population of adults suffering from chronic pain, and highlight the importance of recognizing and addressing specific questionnaire and question-related differences when identifying problematic opioid use in this population.

show abstract

“…These instruments may be superior to the EDI and should be directly compared to the EDI in future studies. Recently, the EDI-3 has shown promising screening properties for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa (Friborg et al, 2013) and for the presence of any eating disorder (Segura-Garcia et al, 2015) and should be evaluated for BED screening. More research is also needed on the potential benefits of screening for subthreshold BED, as well as instruments best suited for this purpose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) (Garner, 1991) has been frequently used as an eating disorder screening tool (Friborg, Clausen, & Rosenvinge, 2013;Jacobi, Abascal, & Taylor, 2004;Segura-Garcia et al, 2015) and measure of treatment response (Brambilla et al, 2009;Danielsen & Ro, 2012;Fittig, Jacobi, Backmund, Gerlinghoff, & Wittchen, 2008;Hagman et al, 2011;Lammers, Vroling, Ouwens, Engels, & van Strien, 2015). It is available in many languages and discriminates well between eating disorder patients and both psychiatric and normal control subjects (Nevonen, Clinton, & Norring, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Eating Disorder Inventory in the screening for DSM-5 binge eating disorder

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:We assessed whether the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) is suitable for screening binge eating disorder (BED) in young women. Method: Young women (N = 2825) from the 1975-79 birth cohorts of Finnish twins were assessed by questionnaires, including subscales of the EDI. For a subset of women (N = 548), we established DSM-5 diagnoses of BED; 16 women had lifetime BED. We compared screening properties of the EDI scales using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, determined optimal cutoff points, and calculated sensitivities and specificities.Results: The best screen for DSM-5 BED was the global score of three subscales (Bulimia, Drive for Thinness, Body Dissatisfaction) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86. Its sensitivity was 87% and specificity 76% at cutoff ≥21. Three individual subscales had acceptable screening properties: Bulimia (AUC 0.83; sensitivity 80%, specificity 78% at cutoff ≥2), Drive For Thinness (AUC 0.82; sensitivity 87%, specificity 72% at cutoff ≥7), and Body Dissatisfaction (AUC 0.81; sensitivity 93%, specificity 60% at cutoff ≥8). Conclusion: The EDI performed well as a screening tool for BED in our community-based sample of young twin women. Future studies should assess its value in other populations and in clinical settings.

show abstract

Ability of EDI-2 and EDI-3 to correctly identify patients and subjects at risk for eating disorders

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

Body image and eating behavior in young adults born preterm

Body image and eating behavior in young adults born preterm

Evaluation and comparison of tools for diagnosing problematic prescription opioid use among chronic pain patients

The Eating Disorder Inventory in the screening for DSM-5 binge eating disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About