Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Eating Disorders in Individuals With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sahu SS, Khatib MN, Mm R, Kaur M, Sharma GC, Sudan P, Naidu KS, Singh R et al.

European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 2025

1,135 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Eating disorders (EDs) are significant comorbidities in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs), yet they are often under recognized. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise existing evidence on the prevalence of EDs in SSD populations and to explore potential moderators such as geographical location and diagnostic tools.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies reporting the prevalence of EDs in individuals with SSDs. Subgroup analyses examined the influence of geographical location and screening tools on prevalence estimates. Sensitivity analyses and a funnel plot were used to assess the robustness of the findings and potential publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies, comprising 1135 participants, were included in the review, with 12 studies contributing to the meta-analysis using R v4.4. The pooled prevalence of EDs in individuals with SSDs was 15.65% (95% CI: 8.04-28.26), with a prediction interval ranging from 1.62% to 67.66%. Subgroup analysis by geographical location revealed substantial variability, with prevalence estimates ranging from 5.88% in Southern Europe to 28.99% in the Middle East and North Africa. Studies using questionnaire-based tools reported a higher pooled prevalence (19.25%) compared to those employing DSM-based diagnostic criteria (11.90%). Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 = 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the…

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: 1,135 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