Evidence Hub

Eating disorders and disordered eating symptoms in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lo Buglio G, Mirabella M, Muzi L, Boldrini T, Cerasti E, Bjornestad J, Fiorentino F, Polari A et al.

Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2024

2,060 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Eating disorders (EDs) are among the least studied mental disorders in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). The primary aim (a) of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify factors predicting ED diagnoses in CHR-P individuals. The secondary aim (b) was providing a comprehensive clinical description of individuals with both CHR-P and EDs/ED-related symptoms.

Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed/(EBSCO)PsycINFO/Web of Science for studies published between 01/01/2018 and 30/05/2023, including individuals with CHR-P and EDs/ED symptoms (PROSPERO CRD42023488792). Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We performed a meta-regression model on the proportion of EDs in CHR-P individuals (primary aim) and conducted a narrative synthesis (secondary aim).

Results: We included 26 articles, reporting on 2,060 and 589 subjects for study aim (a) and (b), respectively (mean NOS score = 6.38). The prevalence of EDs in CHR-P individuals was 0.05 (95% CI 0.3-0.8). No factor had a significant effect on the proportion of EDs in CHR-P individuals. This result is limited by the inability to include ED-related symptoms and antipsychotic prescriptions in the meta-regression model, due to an insufficient number of studies reporting on these variables. The narrative synthesis offers a characterization of…

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: 2,060 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