↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective study of the impact of DSM-5 on the diagnosis of eating disorders in Victoria, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Eating Disorders, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A retrospective study of the impact of DSM-5 on the diagnosis of eating disorders in Victoria, Australia
Published in
Journal of Eating Disorders, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40337-015-0072-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry Caudle, Christine Pang, Sam Mancuso, David Castle, Richard Newton

Abstract

This study compares the DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for eating disorders. DSM-IV resulted in a large number of patients being diagnosed with Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). In DSM-5 the residual category is renamed Other Specified Feeding and Eating Disorders (OSFED) and Unspecified Eating Disorders (UFED) however the diagnostic criteria for the residual category in each of the diagnostic systems remains the same. This study aims to evaluate the changes in percentages of patients in a residual DSM-IV category compared to a residual DSM-5 category by retrospectively applying DSM-5 criteria to the clinical records of a patient population in a clinical setting. It also aims to compare the psychopathology between the EDNOS and OSFED/UFED groups. 285 participants were recruited from a specialised eating disorder clinic in Australia over a 5-year period from 2009 until 2014. The clinical records of patients with diagnoses of anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN) and EDNOS were retrospectively assessed using the DSM-5 criteria. All patients who had attended the clinic and received an eating disorder diagnosis during this period were included in the study. No patients were diagnosed with binge eating disorder during the study period. This is surprising given the prevalence of binge eating disorder in the community. It is possible that individuals with binge eating disorder were not referred to the clinic following the initial referral and assessment due to the lack of binge eating specific interventions available. The referral process may also have been skewed towards AN, BN and EDNOS due to a perception by referring parties that binge eating disorder was a 'milder' condition that did not require specialist intervention. Information in the clinical records included structured clinical interviews, and self-rating scales of eating disorder and other psychiatric symptoms and a longitudinal narrative of patient performance and attitude during observed meals. We observed a 23.5% reduction in the diagnosis of OSFED/UFED with the implementation of DSM-5 compared to EDNOS with DSM-IV. The removal of Criterion D, amenorrhoea, was the leading cause for transition from EDNOS to AN. DSM-5 has reduced the reliance on EDNOS. However this study was unable to examine the reliability of the new diagnostic criteria or the impact of DSM-5 on binge eating disorder.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 24%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,747,092
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Eating Disorders
#582
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,029
of 286,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Eating Disorders
#16
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.