ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
Development and validation of the body-related distress scale for obesity (BDS-O): a patient-reported outcome measure for Chinese population with obesity.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Body dissatisfaction has significant negative effects on Chinese individuals with obesity. However, tools used for measuring body-related distress that are culturally relevant to the condition of obesity remain underdeveloped. To address this, we developed and validated the Body-Related Distress Scale for Obesity (BDS-O), a culturally appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) scale for Chinese adults with BMI ≥ 28.0. An initial item pool was developed through qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by the Symptom Experience Model and international PRO standards. These items were further refined through cognitive interviews and a Delphi procedure involving ten experts in the medical field. Following multiple revisions based on these cognitive interviews and expert feedback, the final scale was established to measure 25 individual statements. The factorial analysis process involved 415 participants to determine the constructs. The model analysis revealed that these constructs explained 70.45% of the variance. The constructs also demonstrated good model fit. The reliability measures for the body image and obesity constructs were also highly consistent, with composite reliability 0.86-0.93.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.