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

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102502

{"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).

查看原文本刊更多论文

避免性/限制性食物摄入障碍：系统回顾和荟萃分析表明研究质量对患病率的影响

目标回避型/限制型食物摄入障碍（ARFID）的患病率尚不明确。本文首次提出了基于荟萃分析的 ARFID 患病率估计值，并评估了研究质量对这些估计值的影响。方法检索了PubMed、PsychInfo、Web of Science 和 CINAHL（最终检索日期为 2024 年 7 月 30 日）2013 年至 2024 年间发表的同行评审论文。采用随机效应和质量效应荟萃分析来计算和比较流行率估计值，并评估研究质量对流行率的影响。同时还考虑了分组（性别、年龄组、临床状态）。Loney 等人（1998 年）的《健康研究文献批判性评估》：Loney 等人（1998 年）的《健康研究文献的批判性评估：健康问题的流行率或发生率》量表用于给每项研究的质量打分，分为三个类别：方法的有效性（6 分）；结果的解释（1 分）；结果的适用性（1 分）。采用随机效应进行的元分析表明，患病率为 11.14%（95% CI 为 8.16-14.5%），而质量效应患病率为 4.51%（95% CI 为 0.7-10.68%）。结论即使采用较为保守的 4.51% 的估计值，本综述也表明 ARFID 是一种常见疾病，值得进一步研究并发展临床和服务。未来的研究需要在方法上更加稳健（更大的样本；标准化的诊断措施；更清晰的数据展示）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

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.