Evidence Hub

Can the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) reliably identify eating disorder diagnosis in women with type 1 diabetes?

Haugvik S, Hennekes MHCL, de Wit M, Toschi E, Desjardins CD, Skrivarhaug T, Dahl-Jørgensen K, Stice E et al.

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2026

293 participants

Abstract

Aims: The objective of this study was to evaluate the Diabetes Eating Problems Survey-Revised (DEPS-R) against the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Interview (EDDI). Specific aims were to (1) assess the ability of the DEPS-R to identify Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) eating disorders, including sensitivity and specificity of the current DEPS-R cutoff ≥20 and (2) report the correlation of each item to the presence of any eating disorder.

Methods: Baseline data from 293 women (14-35 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and body image concerns enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial were examined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, univariate logistic regression and two-sample t-test were performed.

Results: The ROC analysis demonstrated good accuracy of the DEPS-R with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.94). The cutoff of ≥20 yielded a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% CI 83.6%-91.3%) and a specificity of 60.4% (95% CI 54.8%-66.0%). Univariate logistic regression identified 12 items as significantly correlated with the presence of any eating disorder. The highest odds ratios (OR) were observed for items 9 (OR = 3.64), 8 (OR = 2.85), 13 (OR = 2.36), 14 (OR = 2.23), 15 (OR = 1.99) and 5 (OR = 1.99).

Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the ability of the DEPS-R to identify DSM-5 eating disorder diagnosis established via a diagnostic interview using a ROC-analysis. DEPS-R cutoff ≥20 correctly identified most cases with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 293 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