Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Eating Disorders in People With Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Paudex T, Endomba FT, Forestier N, Pierandrei A, Chauvet-Gélinier JC, Pinoit JM

Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 2025

4,369 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) across the borderline personality disorder (BPD) population. Method After protocol registration (number = CRD42023415721), we systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science for articles that allowed the assessment of the proportion of at least one ED in a sample of patients with BPD. Risk of bias was estimated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for studies reporting prevalence data, and we used a random‐effects meta‐analytic model. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement. Results A total of 34 articles were included, with 20 reports (N = 4107) related to EDs without distinction, and 20 (n = 3901), 20 (n = 4369), seven (n = 766), and six (n = 1773) reports related to anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), and eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS), respectively. The overall frequency of EDs in BPD was estimated to be 29.7% (95% CI = [21.6%, 38.4%]), while the frequencies of AN, BN, BED, and EDNOS were estimated to be 9.98% (95% CI = [5.6%, 15.3%]), 16.3% (95% CI = [12.1%, 21.1%]), 16.3% (95% CI = [6%, 30%]) and 18.8% (95% CI = [10.6%, 28.6%]), respectively. The overall risk of bias was moderate, there was no publication bias, and the certainty levels of our evidence were low. Discussion This meta‐analytic review highlights the high…

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. Reported size: 4,369 participants or records.

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