Evidence Hub

Sexual Dysfunction in Women With Eating Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hess T, Špacírová Z

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

908 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Eating disorders (EDs) are common mental health conditions that impact people globally. Sexual health problems are also widely researched across various contexts. This paper explores the connection between these two areas by conducting a meta-analysis to assess sexual dysfunction (SD) in women with EDs compared to healthy individuals.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched. Studies reporting mean scores of SD scales in women with EDs compared to women without these conditions, were included. The combined analyses used standardized mean deviations (SMDs), with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Each study was weighted using inverse variance models with random effects. The risk of publication bias was estimated.

RESULTS

From an initial pool of 2665 studies, 7 studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review, involving 908 individuals. Out of these, five studies focussing on women with AN or BN were eligible for meta-analysis. No study involving the BED female group met the inclusion criteria to be included in the meta-analysis. The association between SD and AN showed a random-effects pooled SMD of -0.95 (95% CI = -1.40 to -0.50) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 78.32%, p = 0.01). For BN, this was of -0.51 (95% CI = -0.88 to -0.13) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.76). Sensitivity analyses showed that the overall effect is sensitive to the type of questionnaire used to measure the SD.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that SD is more…

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: 908 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