{"title":"从 DSM-5 的内部和外部全面看待 OSFED 类别:对 Dang 等人的评论 2024。","authors":"Angélica M. Claudino, Phillipa J. Hay","doi":"10.1002/eat.24267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This Commentary discusses the findings of Dang et al.'s systematic review and metanalysis on the “Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder” (OSFED) category in the context of current conceptualizations and main international diagnostic schemes of classification, the DSM-5 and the ICD-11. The aim to reduce less specified eating disorder categories in these classifications has not been completely achieved and OSFED cases remain prevalent. Different definitions of OSFED contribute to difficulties in study selection and limitation of data aggregation in metanalysis, highlighting the need for improving methodologies for studying OSFED subtypes. Although use of either the DSM-5 or ICD-11 scheme concurs with Dang et al.'s main finding that OSFED comprises categories of similar clinical significance to the recognized eating disorders, the ICD-11 includes more people with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, or binge-eating disorder who would receive a DSM-5 OSFED diagnosis. This may have impacts for epidemiological studies of distribution as well as for identification and treatment of the individual. We support that before creating new eating disorder categories, consideration be given to also broadening current DSM-5 criteria. This approach may result in fewer OSFED subtypes needing elevation to distinct categories, potentially limiting these to just purging disorder and night eating syndrome.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":"57 10","pages":"2045-2048"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking a Global View of the OSFED Category From Inside and Outside the DSM-5: Comment on Dang et al. 2024\",\"authors\":\"Angélica M. Claudino, Phillipa J. Hay\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eat.24267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This Commentary discusses the findings of Dang et al.'s systematic review and metanalysis on the “Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder” (OSFED) category in the context of current conceptualizations and main international diagnostic schemes of classification, the DSM-5 and the ICD-11. The aim to reduce less specified eating disorder categories in these classifications has not been completely achieved and OSFED cases remain prevalent. Different definitions of OSFED contribute to difficulties in study selection and limitation of data aggregation in metanalysis, highlighting the need for improving methodologies for studying OSFED subtypes. Although use of either the DSM-5 or ICD-11 scheme concurs with Dang et al.'s main finding that OSFED comprises categories of similar clinical significance to the recognized eating disorders, the ICD-11 includes more people with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, or binge-eating disorder who would receive a DSM-5 OSFED diagnosis. This may have impacts for epidemiological studies of distribution as well as for identification and treatment of the individual. We support that before creating new eating disorder categories, consideration be given to also broadening current DSM-5 criteria. This approach may result in fewer OSFED subtypes needing elevation to distinct categories, potentially limiting these to just purging disorder and night eating syndrome.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"volume\":\"57 10\",\"pages\":\"2045-2048\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Eating Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24267\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eat.24267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Taking a Global View of the OSFED Category From Inside and Outside the DSM-5: Comment on Dang et al. 2024
This Commentary discusses the findings of Dang et al.'s systematic review and metanalysis on the “Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder” (OSFED) category in the context of current conceptualizations and main international diagnostic schemes of classification, the DSM-5 and the ICD-11. The aim to reduce less specified eating disorder categories in these classifications has not been completely achieved and OSFED cases remain prevalent. Different definitions of OSFED contribute to difficulties in study selection and limitation of data aggregation in metanalysis, highlighting the need for improving methodologies for studying OSFED subtypes. Although use of either the DSM-5 or ICD-11 scheme concurs with Dang et al.'s main finding that OSFED comprises categories of similar clinical significance to the recognized eating disorders, the ICD-11 includes more people with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, or binge-eating disorder who would receive a DSM-5 OSFED diagnosis. This may have impacts for epidemiological studies of distribution as well as for identification and treatment of the individual. We support that before creating new eating disorder categories, consideration be given to also broadening current DSM-5 criteria. This approach may result in fewer OSFED subtypes needing elevation to distinct categories, potentially limiting these to just purging disorder and night eating syndrome.
期刊介绍:
Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.