Evidence Hub

Characteristics of Studies on the Diagnosis of Malingering: A Systematic Review

K. Y. Xu, Tashalee R. Brown, Adrienne Grzenda, Christina Mangurian, M. Doering, D. Malaspina, Sonya E. Gabrielian, A. Hwong et al.

Psychiatric Services, 2026

17 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The authors of this review aimed to examine the characteristics of published research on the clinical diagnosis of malingering and to critically assess the reporting of data on housing, race-ethnicity, and co-occurring psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

Five databases (Embase, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) were searched from database inception to June 17, 2025. Results were independently screened by two researchers to identify studies of patients given a diagnosis of malingering in a clinical setting. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Of 3,150 records screened, 21 articles were included. Methods of identifying malingering used by these studies included the nonmutually exclusive categories of chart review (N=17 studies, 81%), ICD codes (N=7, 33%), and DSM criteria (N=3, 14%). Only five (24%) articles reported the housing status of individuals given a diagnosis of malingering. The racial-ethnic characteristics of people determined to be malingering were seldom reported (N=6, 29%). Although nine (43%) articles reported the prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders among people determined to be malingering, the focus of reporting was overwhelmingly on personality, mood, psychotic, and substance use-related disorders, with limited coverage of cognitive disorders and anxiety- and trauma-related disorders. Only three (14%) articles reported data on longitudinal mental health outcomes such as overdose and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 17 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