Evidence Hub

Gastric dilatation in patients with restrictive eating disorders

Gibson D, Watters A, Dee E, Mehler PS

The International journal of eating disorders, 2022

56 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To better understand gastric dimensions in patients diagnosed with restrictive eating disorders (EDs).

METHOD: In this retrospective study, 56 patients, with restrictive EDs, and 60 gender/age/race-matched patients from an outpatient clinic, were studied. Difference in stomach size, between cohorts, was ascertained, and regression analyses were used to examine associations with stomach size in the ED cohort.

RESULTS: Patients with EDs were found to have significantly enlarged gastric dimensions when compared to the control group (M:14.8 cm [SD: 3.2] vs. 11.4 cm [SD: 2.9], p < .0001). Among the ED cohort, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), on the day of imaging, positively correlated with gastric dimensions (r = .43, p = .0009), while hypoalbuminemia negatively correlated with gastric dimensions (r = -.37, p = .005). BUN and albumin nadir were also significantly associated with stomach size (r2 = .26, F[2,53] = 9.46, p = .0003). There was no significant correlation between gastric dimensions and ED diagnosis, percent ideal body weight, gender, duration of illness, engagement in vomiting behaviors, diagnosis of superior mesenteric artery syndrome, or use of promotility agents.

DISCUSSION: Findings in this study suggest that malnutrition, secondary to EDs, may be associated with an enlarged stomach. The relationship between the gastric dimensions and reported GI symptoms in this population remain to be determined.

PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: There are many physiologic changes to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 56 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