Skip to main content

Table 2 Random and common effects meta-analysis models of the prevalence of disordered eating in high school students

From: The global prevalence of screen-based disordered eating and associated risk factors among high school students: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Analysis

Descriptive

Random-effects meta-analysis

Common-effects meta-analysis

Visual results

Heterogeneity

Moderators

Publication bias

K

Pooled results (95% CI)

Pooled results (95% CI)

Forest plot figure no.

H

I2 (%)

Ï„2

Ï„

Qa

p

Age

Sex

BMI

Egger's testb

Rank testc

All Data

66

13.0% [10.0; 16.8]

22.7% [22.3; 23.2]

Figure 4

10.3

99.0

1.5

1.2

6837.3

0.001

0.1

0.5

0.2

NS

NS

By Country

   

Figure 7

     

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 Spain

7

5.7 [3.7; 8.5]

7.3 [6.7; 7.9]

 

–

96.6

0.3

0.6

177.8

      

 Italy

14

4.4 [2.2; 8.9]

15.6 [14.7; 16.6]

  

98.4

1.9

1.4

834.8

      

 USA

11

21.5 [15.5; 29.0]

19.1 [17.8; 20.4]

  

94.3

0.4

0.6

174.9

      

 Australia

4

7.5 [3.0; 17.6]

15.86 [14.64; 17.16]

  

98.6

0.9

1.0

215.4

      

By Culture

   

Figure 8

–

    

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 Western

53

12.1 [8.7; 16.5]

23.8 [23.3; 24.3]

  

99.2

1.8

1.3

6343.5

      

 Eastern

13

17.0 [12.6; 22.7]

16.8 [15.9; 17.8]

  

96.6

0.4

0.6

349.0

      

By COVID-19

   

Not Shown

–

    

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 Yes

0

–

–

  

–

–

–

–

      

 No

66

13.0 [10.0; 16.8]

22.7 [22.3; 23.2]

  

99.0

1.5

1.2

6837.3

      

By Tool

   

Figure 9

–

    

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 EAT26

15

14.7 [10.6; 20.0]

15.1 [14.4; 15.9]

  

96.4

0.5

0.7

388.8

      

 DAWBA

4

29.3 [22.2; 37.4]

30.8 [29.5; 32.1]

  

98.3

0.1

0.4

177.3

      

 EAT40

6

8.2 [4.3; 14.8]

10.7 [9.9; 11.5]

  

97.6

0.7

0.8

206.7

      

 EDI2

4

38.8 [27.1; 52.0]

47.9 [46.2; 49.5]

  

98.6

0.3

0.5

213.7

      

 EAT

4

3.3 [1.0; 11.1]

9.1 [8.0; 10.4]

  

96.0

1.6

1.3

75.7

      

 BITE

6

2.7 [1.3; 5.6]

4.8 [4.1; 5.5]

  

95.5

0.8

0.9

110.4

      

 EDEQ

6

28.8 [21.0; 38.2]

25.2 [23.6; 26.8]

  

91.3

0.3

0.5

57.8

      

By Design

   

Not Shown

–

    

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 Cross-sectional

45

13.6 [10.0; 18.4]

23.6 [23.1; 24.2]

  

99.1

1.4

1.2

4781.0

      

 Cohort

19

10.4 [6.1; 17.0]

19.7 [19.0; 20.4]

  

99.0

1.6

1.3

1861.8

      

 Case-control

2

35.5 [20.8; 53.5]

34.1 [31.1; 37.3]

  

98.2

0.3

0.5

56.4

      

By time framework

   

Figure 10

–

    

0.001

–

–

 

–

–

 1990–1994

3

3.3 [2.54; 4.4]

3.3 [2.5; 4.4]

  

0.0

0

0

1.6

      

 1995–1999

7

11.8 [6.7; 20.0]

11.02 [10.30; 11.8]

  

98.1

0.7

0.8

315.1

      

 2000–2004

11

13.7 [7.2; 24.6]

25.2 [24.2; 26.3]

  

99.2

1.5

1.2

1281.5

      

 2005–2009

26

8.9 [5.3; 14.5]

15.1 [14.4; 15.7]

  

98.8

2.0

1.4

2107.8

      

 2010–2014

6

24.9 [13.7; 40.8]

22.0 [20.6; 23.5]

  

97.1

0.8

0.9

173.2

      

 2015–2019

8

27.4 [18.3; 38.9]

41.02 [39.8; 42.2]

  

98.7

0.6

0.7

533.5

      

 2020–2024

5

21.7 [14.3; 31.7]

24.0 [22.8; 25.2]

  

96.9

0.3

0.6

130.5

      
  1. K included studies numbers,
  2. I2 Statistic refereed to the percentage of variation across samples due to heterogeneity rather than chance
  3. Ï„2 Describe the extent of variation among the effects observed in different samples (between-sample variance)
  4. H Describe confidence intervals of heterogeneity
  5. aSignificant differences between samples in meta-analysis
  6. bDetects publication bias in meta-analysis
  7. cRepresent the correlation between effect sizes and sample variation
Back to article page

Journal of Eating Disorders

ISSN: 2050-2974