Evidence Hub

Validated eating disorder screening tools for paediatric populations: A systematic review

Maya Jabs, Jamie-Lee Pennesi, Simone Baillie, P. Hay, D. Mitchison, Lyza Norton, Katarina Prnjak, Tracey D. Wade et al.

Psychiatry Research, 2025

25,444 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in paediatric eating disorder (ED) cases, highlighting the need for validated screening tools, particularly for pre-adolescent children, to enable early detection.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to systematically evaluate the validation and psychometric properties of screening tools for assessing EDs in the paediatric population, with a focus on pre-adolescents (under 12 years).

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic search of Medline (OVID) and PsycInfo (OVID) databases was conducted following Cochrane Rapid Review Guidelines, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023465366). Studies were selected based on seven criteria, including ED diagnoses (anorexia nervosa, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder) in children under 12. A random 20% sample was cross-checked for errors. Data extraction followed a pre-defined template with additional independent checks. The primary outcome was the predictive validity of the screening tools.

RESULTS

Of 3,911 citations screened, 28 studies (N=25,444) were included, with six focusing on children under 12 (N=1,430). The methods varied, with 18 studies using clinical interviews and 10 using validated questionnaires. Most tools achieved a Level 3 rating on The Rational Clinical Examination Levels of Evidence, indicating methodological limitations. The child version of the Eating Attitudes Test (ChEAT) had the most evidence, though it has not been validated for DSM-5…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 25,444 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free