Drowning in Medicalization? Commentary on: Dang et al. “Taking a Deeper Dive Into OSFED Subtypes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis”

ABSTRACT The study by Dang and colleagues in this issue is a timely reminder of the need for careful consideration when it comes to the inclusion of putative new diagnoses in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). The authors conclude that findings from their systematic review and meta‐analysis of recent literature bearing on the DSM‐5 other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED) category “support the conceptualization of atypical AN, PD and NES as clinically significant EDs with similar severity to full‐threshold EDs.” This commentary attempts to provide some additional context, historical context in particular, that the author believes may be helpful when considering the potential implications of Dang and colleagues' findings. This is achieved through reference to the construct, well‐known in the sociology and feminist literature, of medicalization and by highlighting certain issues relevant to the determination of “clinical significance.” I hope that readers approaching Dang and colleagues' research from the currently dominant, medical‐model perspective might be persuaded of the importance of considering alternative perspectives when interpreting findings from research of this kind.