Berner Laura A, Sysko Robyn, Rebello Tahilia J, Roberto Christina A, Pike Kathleen M
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
J Eat Disord. 2020 Nov 23;8(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s40337-020-00342-z.
Although data suggest that the sense of "loss of control" (LOC) is the most salient aspect of binge eating, the definition of LOC varies widely across eating disorder assessments. The WHO ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for binge eating do not require an objectively large amount of food, which makes accurate LOC diagnosis even more critical. However, it can be especially challenging to assess LOC in the context of elevated weight status and in the absence of compensatory behaviors. This ICD-11 field sub-study examined how descriptions of subjective experience during distressing eating episodes, in combination with different eating episode sizes, influence diagnoses of binge-eating disorder (BED).
Mental health professionals with eating disorder expertise from WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 192) participated in English, Japanese, and Spanish. Participants were asked to select the correct diagnosis for two randomly assigned case vignettes and to rate the clinical importance and ease of use of each BED diagnostic guideline.
The presence of LOC interacted with episode size to predict whether a correct diagnostic conclusion was reached. If the amount consumed during a typical distressing eating episode was only subjectively large compared to objectively large, clinicians were 23.1 times more likely to miss BED than to correctly diagnose it, and they were 9.7 times more likely to incorrectly diagnose something else than to correctly diagnose BED. In addition, clinicians were 10.8 times more likely to make a false positive diagnosis of BED when no LOC was described if the episode was objectively large. Descriptions of LOC that were reliably associated with correct diagnoses across episodes sizes included two that are similar to those already included in proposed ICD-11 guidelines and a third that is not. This third description of LOC focuses on giving up attempts to control eating because perceived overeating feels inevitable.
Results highlight the importance of detailed clarification of the LOC construct in future guidelines. Explicitly distinguishing LOC from distressing and mindless overeating could help promote consistent and accurate diagnosis of BED versus another or no eating disorder.
尽管数据表明“失控感”(LOC)是暴饮暴食最突出的方面,但在饮食失调评估中,LOC的定义差异很大。世界卫生组织(WHO)《国际疾病分类第11版》(ICD - 11)中关于暴饮暴食的诊断指南并不要求客观上摄入大量食物,这使得准确诊断LOC变得更加关键。然而,在体重增加且没有代偿行为的情况下评估LOC可能特别具有挑战性。这项ICD - 11实地子研究考察了在痛苦进食发作期间主观体验的描述,结合不同的进食发作量,如何影响暴饮暴食障碍(BED)的诊断。
来自WHO全球临床实践网络的192名具有饮食失调专业知识的心理健康专业人员参与了英文、日文和西班牙文的研究。参与者被要求为两个随机分配的病例 vignettes 选择正确的诊断,并对每个BED诊断指南的临床重要性和易用性进行评分。
LOC的存在与发作量相互作用,以预测是否得出正确的诊断结论。如果在典型的痛苦进食发作期间摄入的量仅主观上比客观上大,临床医生漏诊BED的可能性是正确诊断的23.1倍,误诊为其他疾病的可能性是正确诊断BED的9.7倍。此外,如果发作量客观上很大但未描述LOC,临床医生误诊为BED的假阳性可能性是正确诊断的10.8倍。在不同发作量中与正确诊断可靠相关的LOC描述包括两个与拟议的ICD - 11指南中已有的描述相似,以及第三个不同的描述。LOC的第三个描述侧重于因为感觉暴饮暴食不可避免而放弃控制饮食的尝试。
结果强调了在未来指南中详细阐明LOC概念的重要性。明确区分LOC与痛苦和无意识的暴饮暴食有助于促进对BED与其他或无饮食失调的一致和准确诊断。