Clinical characteristics and distinctiveness of DSM-5 eating disorder diagnoses: findings from a large naturalistic clinical database

Abstract

BackgroundDSM-IV eating disorder (ED) diagnoses have been criticized for lack of clinical utility, diagnostic instability, and over-inclusiveness of the residual category “ED not otherwise specified” (EDNOS). Revisions made in DSM-5 attempt to generate a more scientifically valid and clinically relevant system of ED classification. The aim with the present study was to examine clinical characteristics and distinctiveness of the new DSM-5 ED diagnoses, especially concerning purging disorder (PD). MethodsUsing a large naturalistic Swedish ED database, 2233 adult women were diagnosed using DSM-5. Initial and 1-year follow-up psychopathology data were analyzed. Measures included the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire, Structural Eating Disorder Interview, Clinical Impairment Assessment, Structural Analysis of Social Behavior, Comprehensive Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders.ResultsFew meaningful differences emerged between anorexia nervosa binge/purge subtype (ANB/P), PD, and bulimia nervosa (BN). Unspecified Feeding and Eating Disorders (UFED) showed significantly less severity compared to other groups.ConclusionsPD does not appear to constitute a distinct diagnosis, the distinction between atypical AN and PD requires clarification, and minimum inclusion criteria for UFED are needed. Further sub-classification is unlikely to improve clinical utility. Instead, better delineation of commonalities is important.

Now you see it, Now you don’t: compulsive exercise in adolescents with an eating disorder

“…Well validated and structured methods for diagnostics and self-rating were used. An attrition rate of 48% is potentially a threat to generalizability, yet attrition analyses found no significant differences, in concordance with another study on the database [45]. Patients in the current study received treatment of various modalities (e.g., medical, psychological, pedagogical, nutritional, social, physical), length and intensity (e.g., inpatient, day-patient, out-patient).…”

Testing the cognitive-behavioural maintenance models across DSM-5 bulimic-type eating disorder diagnostic groups: a multi-centre study

“…BMI) that one might generally expect for the BED group [73]. Nevertheless, the variability of both current and agehistorical variables within BED population is well documented [73,74], and mean values of both dietary restraint and BMI for BED cases are quite close to those observed in other clinical studies [76,77], [73]. Since the mean age of our BED participants at the time of assessment is consistent with that reported in several Italian studies [76,78], but lower than that of American studies (ranging from 38 to 48 years) [73], the possibility that Italians with BED are less tolerant of their overweight condition [78,79] and thus seek treatment more often than their US counterparts should not be ruled out.…”

Predictors of psychological outcome in patients with eating disorders: A routine outcome monitoring study

“…Although our results demonstrated that individuals with BED have a less severe (eating disorder) psychopathology (see Table ), this is not reflected in a better outcome. Given the fact that eating disorder classifications can be regarded as snapshots taken throughout the course of an illness, attention should be paid to delineating which symptoms are present and which are not, because of the general instability of eating disorder symptoms and diagnoses and their highly problematic operationalization …”