Examination of the Clinical Utility of Eating Disorder and Disordered Eating Screening Tools in Young Athletes: A Scoping Review.
Barbara J Hoogenboom, Zachary Capulong, Megan Teeter
PMID 39758700WHAT IT FOUND
The EAT-26 was the most common eating disorder screen used in young athlete studies, but it was not built for athletes.
SCOFF was used in five studies, and only one study checked questionnaire answers with a clinical interview.
Key findings
01The EAT was the most commonly used eating disorder or disordered eating screen in the included articles, appearing in 15 articles, with EAT-26 used in most of them.
02ATHLETE was used in three included articles, while EDSA and BEDA-Q were each used in one included article.
03Only one included study followed a screening tool with a clinical interview, and the other 29 did not.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review was not registered, and no gray literature search was performed, so relevant studies may have been missed. It excluded aesthetic sports, non-NCAA sports, studies with fewer than 20 athletes, and studies not primarily focused on eating disorder or disordered eating diagnosis, so it does not cover many athlete groups or related research questions. Most included studies were cohort or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, varied methods, small samples, and limited racial or ethnic diversity, so the evidence behind tool use is uneven. Only one included study used a clinical interview to verify screening responses, so questionnaire findings may not match clinical assessment. Many included studies relied on self-report, and athletes may under-report eating disorder or disordered eating symptoms.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the commonly used screens were built and tested for athletes. The EAT-26, EDI, and SCOFF were not developed specifically for athletic populations, and only one included study used a clinical interview to check questionnaire responses.