The accuracy and suitability of eating disorder screening tools for binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa in a primary care setting: a systematic review and narrative summary.
Stella Kozmér, Ruichen Yin, Joseph Evans, Alex Burns, Jane Smith
{"title":"The accuracy and suitability of eating disorder screening tools for binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa in a primary care setting: a systematic review and narrative summary.","authors":"Stella Kozmér, Ruichen Yin, Joseph Evans, Alex Burns, Jane Smith","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite available screening tools for eating disorders (EDs), the accuracy and suitability of these in identifying Binge eating disorder (BED) and Bulimia nervosa (BN) in a primary care setting are undetermined, despite BED/BN being the most common EDs.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy and suitability of ED screening tools for BED/BN in a primary care setting.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A systematic review with narrative synthesis in a primary care setting.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Six databases were searched, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion. Studies were included that assessed the accuracy and/or suitability of screening tools for BED/BN in primary care. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative summary was created after integrating the data using a convergent segregated approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies met inclusion criteria. The included studies reported on BEDS-7, EDE-Q and SCOFF screening tools. No studies reported on the accuracy of screening tools for BED and suitability for BN. BEDS-7 and EDE-Q screening tools reported variations in their suitability in primary care. The main barrier to implementation in primary care was time constraints and a lack of trust in screening. SCOFF showed high sensitivity (97.88-100%) for BN but had lower specificity (89.6-94.4%), increasing false positives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ED screening tools face feasibility and accuracy concerns for BED/BN in a primary care setting. Further research is needed to validate screening tools' accuracy and suitability in a primary care setting for BED and BN in the general population.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Despite available screening tools for eating disorders (EDs), the accuracy and suitability of these in identifying Binge eating disorder (BED) and Bulimia nervosa (BN) in a primary care setting are undetermined, despite BED/BN being the most common EDs.
Aim: To evaluate the accuracy and suitability of ED screening tools for BED/BN in a primary care setting.
Design & setting: A systematic review with narrative synthesis in a primary care setting.
Method: Six databases were searched, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion. Studies were included that assessed the accuracy and/or suitability of screening tools for BED/BN in primary care. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative summary was created after integrating the data using a convergent segregated approach.
Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria. The included studies reported on BEDS-7, EDE-Q and SCOFF screening tools. No studies reported on the accuracy of screening tools for BED and suitability for BN. BEDS-7 and EDE-Q screening tools reported variations in their suitability in primary care. The main barrier to implementation in primary care was time constraints and a lack of trust in screening. SCOFF showed high sensitivity (97.88-100%) for BN but had lower specificity (89.6-94.4%), increasing false positives.
Conclusion: ED screening tools face feasibility and accuracy concerns for BED/BN in a primary care setting. Further research is needed to validate screening tools' accuracy and suitability in a primary care setting for BED and BN in the general population.