Diagnosis of type 1 diabetes mellitus triples the odds of screening positive for eating disorders: A case-control study

Table 2 Comparison of anthropometric indices and G-SCOFF results between children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 55) vs children with short stature (n = 55), n (%)

	Total (n = 110)	T1DM (n = 55)	Short stature (n = 55)	Significance1
WAZ	0.09 ± 1.59	1.2 ± 1.0	-0.75 ± 1.4	< 0.001
HAZ	-0.37 ± 1.27	0.51 ± 1.0	-1.25 ± 0.8	< 0.001
BMIz	0.40 ± 1.34	0.76 ± 1.2	0.04 ± 1.4	0.005
Underweight	9 (8.2)	1 (1.8)	8 (14.5)	0.049
Normoweight	69 (62.7)	34 (61.8)	35 (63.6)
Overweight	19 (17.3)	11 (20)	8 (14.5)
Obese	13 (11.8)	9 (16.4)	4 (7.3)
HbA1%	5.7 (2.2)	7.4 (1.2)	5.2 (0.4)	< 0.001
AGR (cm/year)	5.6 ± 2.9	4.4 ± 3.1	6.6 ± 2.3	< 0.001
SCOFF (1-5)	1.0 (1.0)	2.0 (1.0)	1.0 (1.0)	0.006
FED positive	50 (45.5)	33 (60)	17 (30.9)	0.002

¹Categorical variables are presented as counts (n) and percentages (%) or otherwise stated.

Normally continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD and as median and interquartile range for non-normally distributed variables. P values derived from Student’s t test and Mann-Whitney U test, for the normally and for the non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively. P value for categorical variables derived from χ² tests. AGR: Annual growth rate; BMIz: Body mass index z-score; HAZ: Height-for-age z-score; HbA1c: Glycosylated haemoglobin; WAZ: Weight-for-age z-score; FED: Feeding and eating disorder; FED positive: Feeding and eating disorder positive [i.e., participants with a positive G-SCOFF screen (≥ 2 “yes” responses) indicating suspicion of an eating disorder but not a confirmed diagnosis]; T1DM: Type 1 diabetes mellitus.