Evidence Hub

An update on the prevalence of eating disorders in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J. Qian, Ying Wu, Fan-Xiao Liu, Yikang Zhu, Hua Jin, Hongmei Zhang, Yu-mei Wan, Chun-Bo Li et al.

Eating and Weight Disorders, 2021

364 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To update the prevalence of eating disorders in the general population before 2021 and to analyze the distribution characteristics at different times and in different regions and sexes, as well as the diagnostic criteria.

METHODS: Based on the method from a previous report by the authors, studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid and the 4 most important Chinese databases. Articles in English and Chinese before 2021 were retrieved. The data retrieved at this time were pooled with the data from a previous report for analyses.

RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified, which included 18 studies supplemented in this retrieval. The pooled lifetime and 12-month prevalence of eating disorders were 0.91% (95% CI, 0.48-1.71) and 0.43% (95% CI, 0.18-0.78), respectively. The pooled lifetime and 12-month prevalence of the subgroup EDs (any), which covers all types of eating disorders, were 1.69% and 0.72%, respectively. The lifetime prevalence of AN, BN and BED was 0.16% (95% CI, 0.06-0.31), 0.63% (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) and 1.53% (95% CI, 1.00-2.17), respectively. The lifetime prevalence of EDs in Western countries was 1.89%, and was high at 2.58% in females. Prevalence studies using DSM-5 criteria were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of eating disorders might be underestimated thus far. Not all types of EDs were included in a majority of epidemiological surveys, and the prevalence rates of the new types…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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