An empirical comparison of atypical bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder

14Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10) defines atypical bulimia nervosa (ABN) as an eating disorder that encompasses several different syndromes, including the DSM-IV binge eating disorder (BED). We investigated whether patients with BED can be differentiated clinically from patients with ABN who do not meet criteria for BED. Fifty-three obese patients were examined using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and the ICD-10 criteria for eating disorders. All volunteers completed the Binge Eating Scale (BES), the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). Individuals fulfilling criteria for both ABN and BED (N = 18), ABN without BED (N = 16), and obese controls (N = 19) were compared and contrasted. Patients with ABN and BED and patients with ABN without BED displayed similar levels of binge eating severity according to the BES (31.05 ± 7.7 and 30.05 ± 5.5, respectively), which were significantly higher than those found in the obese controls (18.32 ± 8.7; P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). When compared to patients with ABN and BED, patients with ABN without BED showed increased lifetime rates of agoraphobia (P = 0.02) and increased scores in the somatization (1.97 ± 0.85 vs 1.02 ± 0.68; P = 0.001), obsessive-compulsive (2.10 ± 1.03 vs 1.22 ± 0.88; P = 0.01), anxiety (1.70 ± 0.82 vs 1.02 ± 0.72; P = 0.02), anger (1.41 ± 1.03 vs 0.59 ± 0.54; P = 0.005) and psychoticism (1.49 ± 0.93 vs 0.75 ± 0.55; P = 0.01) dimensions of the SCL-90. The BED construct may represent a subgroup of ABN with less comorbities and associated symptoms.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fontenelle, L. F., Mendlowicz, M. V., Moreira, R. O., & Appolinario, J. C. (2005). An empirical comparison of atypical bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 38(11), 1663–1667. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2005001100014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free