Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8:381-404. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143111. Epub 2011 Nov 28.
Current diagnostic criteria for anorexia nervosa (AN) and bulimia nervosa (BN) account for a minority of individuals with clinically significant disorders of eating, raising concerns about the clinical utility of current definitions. This review examines evidence for the validity of current and alternative approaches to defining eating disorders and implications for draft criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Although this review largely supports the predictive validity of distinctions among AN, BN, and the newly proposed binge eating disorder (BED), it also highlights that our tendency to "study what we define" has created a gap between the problems that people have and what we know about those problems. Future research on the causes and consequences of eating disorders should include more heterogeneous groups to enable identification of meaningful boundaries that distinguish between disorders based on etiological and predictive validity.
目前的神经性厌食症（AN）和神经性贪食症（BN）的诊断标准仅适用于少数具有明显临床饮食障碍的个体，这引起了人们对目前定义的临床实用性的关注。本综述考察了目前和替代方法定义饮食障碍的有效性证据，以及对《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版（DSM-5）草案标准的影响。尽管本综述在很大程度上支持了 AN、BN 和新提出的暴食障碍（BED）之间的区分的预测有效性，但它也强调了我们“根据定义来研究”的倾向，这导致了人们所面临的问题与我们对这些问题的了解之间存在差距。未来对饮食障碍的原因和后果的研究应该包括更多的异质群体，以便根据病因学和预测有效性来确定区分障碍的有意义的界限。
