Evidence Hub

Prevalence of eating disorder symptoms in people with insulin-dependent-diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pia E. Niemelä, Hanna A. Leppänen, Ari Voutilainen, Essi M. Möykkynen, Kirsi A. Virtanen, A. Ruusunen, R. Rintamäki

Eating Behaviors, 2024

20 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

AIMS

To examine the prevalence of eating disorder symptoms (EDS) in 16 years and older individuals with insulin-dependent diabetes including both clinical and subclinical eating disorder symptoms.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases to discover studies reporting prevalence of eating disorder symptoms in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes (both type 1 and type 2). We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence of eating disorder symptoms and an independent meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of insulin omission.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis of eating disorder symptoms. Diabetes Eating Problem Survey (DEPS-R) was the most frequently used screening tool (in 43 % of studies, n = 20). The pooled prevalence of eating disorder symptoms was 24 % (95 % CI 0.21-0.28), whereas in studies using DEPS-R, it was slightly higher, 27 % (95 % CI 0.24-0.31), with the prevalence ratio (PR) of 1.1. The prevalence differed between screening tools (χ2 = 85.83, df = 8, p 58 %), the pooled eating disorder symptom prevalence was higher [30 % (95 % CI 0.26-0.34) vs. 18 % (95 % Cl 0.14-0.22), PR 1.7]. The prevalence of insulin omission was 21 % (95 % CI 0.13-0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Eating disorder symptoms and insulin omission are common in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes regardless of age. DEPS-R is the most used screening tool. Studies with a higher proportion of female participants report higher…

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: 20 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