Evidence Hub

Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates

Rebecca Nicholls-Clow, Melanie Simmonds-Buckley, Glenn Waller

Clinical Psychology Review, 2024

122,861 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The prevalence of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) is unclear. This paper is the first to present meta-analysis based estimates of the prevalence of ARFID, and to assess the impact of the quality of the research on these estimates.

DESIGN

A pre-registered (Prospero: CRD42023487621) systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, PsychInfo, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched (final date of retrieval 30th July 2024) for peer reviewed papers published between 2013 and 2024. Random-effects and quality effects meta-analyses were used to compute and compare prevalence estimates and to evaluate the impact of study quality on prevalence rates. Subgroups were also considered (gender, age group, clinical status). Loney et al.'s (1998) Critical Appraisal of the Health Research Literature: Prevalence or Incidence of a Health Problem scale was used to assign each study a quality score across three categories - methodological validity (six points); interpretation of results (one point); and applicability of the results (one point).

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were identified (n = 122,861). Meta-analysis using random-effects indicated a prevalence of 11.14 % (95 % CI 8.16-14.5 %), whereas quality effects prevalence was 4.51 % (95 % CI 0.7-10.68 %). Similar contrasts were evident among subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Even taking the more conservative estimate of 4.51 %, this review demonstrates that ARFID is a common disorder, meriting further research and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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: 122,861 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