Correspondence between the Diabetes Eating Problems Survey–Revised and eating disorder diagnosis: Examining the current cut‐off for clinically significant eating disorder symptoms
Performance · Detection of ED by DEPS-R ≥20 vs EDE diagnosisResult — go to the resultLogistic regression coefficient estimate 3.2 95% CI 2.0–4.6Authors' conclusion
While the majority of individuals with an ED were identified using DEPS-R ≥20, a subset failed to be detected. Clinicians should keep this in mind when using the DEPS-R and may consider additional screening methods.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D participating in a study of eating and weight concerns
- Participants
- 83 adults
- Comparison
- Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) ≥20 vs structured diagnostic ED interview
- Outcome
- Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of DEPS-R ≥20 for detecting eating disorders (EDs)
Performance
Detection of ED by DEPS-R ≥20 vs EDE diagnosis
Logistic regression coefficient estimate
3.2
95% CI 2.0–4.6
By group
DEPS-R ≥20
- Accuracy
- 81.8%
- Sensitivity
- 76.7%
- Specificity
- 88.2%
DEPS-R ≥20
Accuracy81.8%
Sensitivity76.7%
Specificity88.2%
As reported in the abstract
Original publication
Correspondence between the Diabetes Eating Problems Survey–Revised and eating disorder diagnosis: Examining the current cut‐off for clinically significant eating disorder symptoms. Diabet Med. Published 13 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →