| 1. |
- Donini, Lorenzo M, et al.
(författare)
-
A consensus document on definition and diagnostic criteria for orthorexia nervosa
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Eating and Weight Disorders. - Milan : Springer. - 1124-4909 .- 1590-1262. ; 27, s. 3695-3711
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (ὀρθός, right and ὄρεξις, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with “correct” eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included.Methods: 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A–Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B–Consequences; C–Onset; D–Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants.Results: 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON.Conclusions: This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel.Level of evidence: Level V: opinions of expert committees.© 2022, The Author(s).
|
|
| 2. |
- Donini, Lorenzo M., et al.
(författare)
-
Correction : A consensus document on definition and diagnostic criteria for orthorexia nervosa
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Eating and Weight Disorders. - Milan : Springer. - 1124-4909 .- 1590-1262. ; 28
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this article Rebecca C. Reynolds was missing from the author list. The complete correct author group is given below. Lorenzo M. Donini, Juan Ramón Barrada, Friederike Barthels, Thomas M. Dunn, Camille Babeau, Anna Brytek-Matera, Hellas Cena, Silvia Cerolini, Hye-hyun Cho, Maria Coimbra, Massimo Cuzzolaro, Claudia Ferreira, Valeria Galfano, Maria G. Grammatikopoulou, Souheil Hallit, Linn Håman, Phillipa Hay, Masahito Jimbo, Clotilde Lasson, Eva-Carin Lindgren, Renee McGregor, Marianna Minnetti, Edoardo Mocini, Sahar Obeid, Crystal D. Oberle, Maria-Dolores Onieva-Zafra, Marie-Christine Opitz, María-Laura Parra-Fernández, Reinhard Pietrowsky, Natalija Plasonja, Eleonora Poggiogalle, Adrien Rigó, Rachel F. Rodgers, Maria Roncero, Carmina Saldaña, Cristina Segura-Garcia, Jessica Setnick, Ji-Yeon Shin, Grazia Spitoni, Jana Strahler, Nanette Stroebele-Benschop, Patrizia Todisco, Mariacarolina Vacca, Martina Valente, Màrta Varga, Andrea Zagaria, Hana Flynn Zickgraf, Rebecca C. Reynolds & Caterina Lombardo. The original article [1] has been corrected. © 2023, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
|
|
| 3. |
- Korpinen, Samuli, et al.
(författare)
-
Food web assessments in the Baltic Sea : Models bridging the gap between indicators and policy needs
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ambio. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0044-7447 .- 1654-7209. ; 51:7, s. 1687-1697
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ecosystem-based management requires understanding of food webs. Consequently, assessment of food web status is mandatory according to the European Union’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU Member States. However, how to best monitor and assess food webs in practise has proven a challenging question. Here, we review and assess the current status of food web indicators and food web models, and discuss whether the models can help addressing current shortcomings of indicator-based food web assessments, using the Baltic Sea as an example region. We show that although the MSFD food web assessment was designed to use food web indicators alone, they are currently poorly fit for the purpose, because they lack interconnectivity of trophic guilds. We then argue that the multiple food web models published for this region have a high potential to provide additional coherence to the definition of good environmental status, the evaluation of uncertainties, and estimates for unsampled indicator values, but we also identify current limitations that stand in the way of more formal implementation of this approach. We close with a discussion of which current models have the best capacity for this purpose in the Baltic Sea, and of the way forward towards the combination of measurable indicators and modelling approaches in food web assessments.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
