暴饮暴食和神经性贪食症筛查工具在初级保健中的准确性和适用性:系统回顾和叙述总结。

IF 2 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
BJGP Open Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0149
Stella Kozmér, Ruichen Yin, Joseph Evans, Alex Burns, Jane Smith
{"title":"暴饮暴食和神经性贪食症筛查工具在初级保健中的准确性和适用性:系统回顾和叙述总结。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:尽管有饮食失调(EDs)的筛查工具,但这些工具在初级保健环境中识别暴食症(BED)和神经性贪食症(BN)的准确性和适用性尚不确定,尽管BED/BN是最常见的EDs。目的:评估ED筛查工具在初级保健环境下BED/BN的准确性和适用性。设计与设置:在初级保健设置的系统评价与叙事综合。方法:检索MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Embase等6个数据库。两名独立审稿人筛选了纳入的研究。纳入了评估初级保健中BED/BN筛查工具的准确性和/或适用性的研究。使用混合方法评价工具评价质量。在使用聚合隔离方法集成数据之后,创建了叙述性摘要。结果:4项研究符合纳入标准。纳入的研究报告了bed -7、ed - q和SCOFF筛选工具。没有关于BED筛选工具的准确性和BN的适用性的研究报道。bed -7和ed - q筛查工具在初级保健中的适用性存在差异。初级保健实施的主要障碍是时间限制和对筛查缺乏信任。SCOFF对BN的敏感性高(97.88-100%),但特异性较低(89.6-94.4%),假阳性增加。结论:ED筛查工具在初级保健环境中用于BED/BN的可行性和准确性问题。需要进一步的研究来验证筛查工具在普通人群中BED和BN的初级保健设置的准确性和适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信