Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41400796›Full record

SynthesisCurrent nutrition reports2025

Understanding Orthorexia Nervosa: A Systematic Review of Meta-analytical Findings.

Lorenzo Moccia, Maria Benedetta Anesini, Tommaso Callovini, Delfina Janiri, Caterina Policola, Marco Cintoni, Francesca Focà, Georgios Demetrios Kotzalidis, Fabio Conti, Adolfo Bandettini Di Poggio and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current nutrition reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lorenzo MocciaDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Maria Benedetta AnesiniDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso CalloviniDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. t.callovini@gmail.com.
Delfina JaniriDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Caterina PolicolaUnit of Endocrinology, Department of Translational Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore-Fondazione Policlinico "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Largo Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Marco CintoniDepartment of Translational Medicine and Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Francesca FocàUnit of Clinical Psychology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Georgios Demetrios KotzalidisDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Fabio ContiIstituto di Neuroscienze, Neomesia Kos Group, Via Nomentana 1362, 00137, Roma, Italy.
Adolfo Bandettini Di PoggioIstituto di Neuroscienze, Neomesia Kos Group, Via Nomentana 1362, 00137, Roma, Italy.
Giovanni CamardeseDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Gabriele SaniDepartment of Neuroscience, Section of Psychiatry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthorexia Nervosa (ON) is an emerging condition marked by an obsessive focus on healthy eating, often resulting in impairments in well-being, daily functioning, and quality of life. Despite growing awareness, ON is not currently recognized in major psychiatric diagnostic systems, complicating its identification and clinical management.

objectiveThis umbrella review aims to synthesize evidence from existing meta-analyses on the prevalence and associated factors of ON, while critically assessing the quality of the current literature.

methodsA comprehensive review of five meta-analyses was conducted, focusing on ON prevalence rates, its psychological correlates, and the quality of the included studies. The review also evaluated heterogeneity in findings and the reliability of assessment tools used across studies.

resultsPrevalence estimates of ON showed wide variability due to differences in populations and assessment instruments. ON was significantly associated with compulsive exercise, eating disorder symptoms, obsessive-compulsive traits, and perfectionism. Newer diagnostic tools reveal a stronger connection between ON and obsessive-compulsive tendencies, while distinguishing it from traditional eating disorders, due to its focus on food purity rather than weight control. Methodological limitations, such as inconsistent assessment tools and variable study designs, limit the conclusiveness of current evidence, rendering most findings suggestive rather than definitive. DISCUSSION: The review highlights the need for standardized diagnostic criteria, validated screening instruments, and longitudinal studies to establish the clinical relevance of ON. Enhancing understanding of its psychological and behavioral foundations is crucial for improving diagnostic accuracy and developing effective interventions.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersFeeding BehaviorObsessive BehaviorDiet, HealthyFemaleHumansObsessive-Compulsive DisorderPrevalenceQuality of LifeCompulsive exerciseEating disorder spectrumObsessive-compulsive tendenciesOrthorexia nervosaPerfectionism

Identifiers

PMID41400796
PMCPMC12708686

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.