{"title":"Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A pre-registered (Prospero: CRD42023487621) systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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<strong>.</strong> 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) <em>Critical Appraisal of the Health Research Literature: Prevalence or Incidence of a Health Problem</em> 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).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-six studies were identified (<em>n</em> = 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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Even taking the more conservative estimate of 4.51 %, this review demonstrates that ARFID is a common disorder, meriting further research and clinical and service developments. Future research needs to be more methodologically robust (larger samples; standardised diagnostic measures; clearer data presentation).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001235/pdfft?md5=f393be890e09593e9fa087cf4062ee33&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824001235-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001235","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 clinical and service developments. Future research needs to be more methodologically robust (larger samples; standardised diagnostic measures; clearer data presentation).
期刊介绍：
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
