SynthesisClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Prevalence of Eating Disorders in People With Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for Eating Disorders With Comorbid Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Clinical Implications.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyPooled it
- Prevalence of Eating Disorders in People With Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyPooled it
- Which EDE-Q items are structurally relevant in borderline personality disorder? An exploratory graph analysis.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2026Article
- Borderline personality disorder and eating disorders are characterized by specific patterns of autistic traits, post-traumatic and catatonic symptoms.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) across the borderline personality disorder (BPD) population.
methodAfter protocol registration (number = CRD42023415721), we systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science for articles that allowed the assessment of the proportion of at least one ED in a sample of patients with BPD. Risk of bias was estimated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for studies reporting prevalence data, and we used a random-effects meta-analytic model. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement.
resultsA total of 34 articles were included, with 20 reports (N = 4107) related to EDs without distinction, and 20 (n = 3901), 20 (n = 4369), seven (n = 766), and six (n = 1773) reports related to anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), and eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS), respectively. The overall frequency of EDs in BPD was estimated to be 29.7% (95% CI = [21.6%, 38.4%]), while the frequencies of AN, BN, BED, and EDNOS were estimated to be 9.98% (95% CI = [5.6%, 15.3%]), 16.3% (95% CI = [12.1%, 21.1%]), 16.3% (95% CI = [6%, 30%]) and 18.8% (95% CI = [10.6%, 28.6%]), respectively. The overall risk of bias was moderate, there was no publication bias, and the certainty levels of our evidence were low. DISCUSSION: This meta-analytic review highlights the high frequency of EDs in BPD. It could serve as a basis for exploring the determinants of these comorbidities.
conclusionsThrough this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found a high prevalence of EDs and their subtypes in patients with BPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.