Evidence Hub

The Lifetime Prevalence of Non-Suicidal Self-Injury in Children and Adolescents With Eating Disorders-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Meier M, Jansen K, Vertgewall H, Claes L

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

3,311 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective Eating disorders (EDs) and non‐suicidal self‐injury (NSSI) are both phenomena with onset in adolescence. Their co‐occurrence is associated with higher symptom severity and an elevated risk of suicide. In this meta‐analysis, we examine the lifetime prevalence of NSSI in youth with EDs. Methods We searched PsycInfo, PubMed and previously published systematic reviews for studies reporting on lifetime NSSI prevalence among children and adolescents (19 years or younger) with an ED (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating or other specified feeding and EDs) published until June 2024. A generalized linear mixed model meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the pooled prevalence. Meta‐regressions and multivariate meta‐analyses were conducted to estimate separate prevalence rates based on ED diagnosis and care frame (e.g., inpatient vs. outpatient), respectively. Results Fifteen studies comprising 3311 children and adolescents were included. Pooled lifetime NSSI prevalence across all ED diagnoses was 34.2% [CI: 27.5%–41.7%]. Heterogeneity was large (I 2 = 93.8%). Lifetime NSSI prevalence rates were significantly higher for participants with bulimia nervosa (53.6%) and those with anorexia nervosa binge‐eating/purging type (51.9%) than for participants with anorexia nervosa restrictive type (15.8%). Discussion The small number of studies and the large heterogeneity limit the conclusiveness of this meta‐analysis. Results suggest an even higher prevalence 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: 3,311 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