Table 2.

Random and common effects meta-analysis models of the prevalence of disordered eating in Athletes

Analysis	Descriptive		Random-effects meta-analysis	Common-effects meta-analysis	Visual Results	Heterogeneity						Moderators		Publication bias
	K	N	Pooled results (95%CI)	Pooled results (95%CI)	Forest Plot	H	I2	τ2	τ	Q	p	Age	Sex	Egger's test	Rank test
All Data	177	70,957	19.23% [17.04; 21.62]	20.52% [20.15; 20.89]	Figure 3	6.17	97.4%	0.9	0.9	6699.62	0	NS	NS	NS	NS
By Country Turkey China Czech Republic German France UK Canada Spain Norway Australia Brazil Multi USA	3 3 4 5 7 7 8 10 10 11 12 17 59	580 466 172 2879 711 6558 857 6066 3506 1005 1258 10,888 27,017	30.4% [9.1; 65.6] 51.4% [40.7; 61.9] 28.3% [20.3; 37.9] 13.9% [8.3; 22.4] 29.0% [21.5; 37.9] 18.7% [12.3; 28.0] 7.7% [3.5; 16.4] 12.8% [8.01; 19.7] 22.6% [15.2; 32.3] 57.1% [36.0; 75.8] 20.8% [13.7; 30.4] 10.9% [7.0; 16.6] 17.0% [12.9; 22.0]	28.4% [24.4; 32.8] 48.7% [44.1; 53.2] 29.1% [22.7; 36.5] 16.3% [14.9; 17.8] 30.6% [27.2; 34.1] 14.0% [13.2; 14.9] 15.7%[12.6; 19.3] 20.0% [19.0; 21.1] 18.4% [17.1; 20.0] 39.1% [35.4; 42.9] 19.0% [16.7; 21.6] 11.2% [10.5; 12.0] 24.0% [23.2; 24.8]	Additional file 9	–	98.0% 75.7% 22.2% 95.6% 76.0% 95.6% 89.0% 97.6% 95.8% 96.2% 86.6% 97.2% 98.2%	1.7 0.1 0.05 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.6 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.5	1.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.2	101.8 8.2 3.9 91.0 25.0 137 63.7 377.1 215.9 265.0 82.3 577.8 3207.6	< 0.0001	–	–	–	–
By Culture Eastern Western	14 163	1980 68,977	29.1% [20.1; 40.2] 18.5% [16.3; 20.9]	33.6% [31.3; 35.9] 19.96% [19.95; 20.34]	Additional file 10	–	97.4% 94.5%	0. 9 0.8	0.9 0.9	6291.2 237.6	–	–	–	–	–
By sports energy system Anaerobic Aerobic Both	19 52 106	1828 16,287 52,842	37.9% [27.0; 50.2] 19.6% [15.2; 25.0] 17% [14.6; 19.4]	38.3% [35.8; 40.9] 25.5% [24.7; 26.4 18.1% [17.7; 18.5]	Additional file 11	–	93.9% 97.7% 97.2%	1.1 1.2 0.7	1.0 1.1 0.8	297.3 2187.52 3684.5	–	–	–	–	–
By sport category Swimming Martial arts Gymnastics Outdoor Mixed	3 11 20 47 96	234 507 1680 29,195 39,341	20.2% [8.6; 40.6] 26.3% [18.1; 36.4] 41.5% [30.4; 53.6] 15.4% [11.6; 20.2] 17.6% [15.2; 20.4]	25.2% [19.6; 31.7] 25.8% [21.8; 30.2] 40.9% [38.2; 43.6] 15.8% [16.2; 17.4] 21.3% [20.9; 21.8]	Additional file 12	–	88.3% 76.6% 92.9% 98.0% 97.4%	0.7 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.7	0.8 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.9	17.1 42.7 267.5 2154.3 3714.3	< 0.0001	–	–	–	–
By Measurement tool BITE TFEQ EAT–40 QEDD FAST EDI–2 EDI–3 SCOFF RD EDI EDEQ EAT–26	3 5 5 6 6 8 9 9 13 19 25 55	258 228 804 2336 4371 1034 968 6775 6398 4513 9145 27,055	12.2% [2.8; 40.3] 73.0% [60.1; 82.8] 18.6% [6.7; 42.1] 7.3% [2.9; 17.1] 22.0% [11.6; 37.7] 15.0% [10.5; 20.9] 34.0% [25.4; 43.9] 19.4% [13.9; 26.6] 14.8% [10.6; 20.2] 35.1% [27.2; 44.0] 15.1% [10.4; 21.3] 15.9% [12.4; 20.1]	19.5% [13.6; 27.1] 75.4% [69.1; 80.7] 23.9% [20.6; 27.5] 16.9% [15.0; 19.0] 18.0% [16.8; 19.3] 13.5% [11.5; 15.9] 34.9% [31.9; 38.1] 21.1% [20.1; 22.2] 13.6% [12.8; 14.6] 25.1% [23.7; 26.5] 19.1% [18.0; 20.2] 19.0% [18.4; 19.7]	Additional file 13	–	90.0% 65.7% 97.0% 97.4% 98.3% 71.5% 86.0% 97.3% 94.9% 95.6% 96.9% 97.4%	1.7 0.3 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.0	1.3 0.5 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0	20.0 11.7 135.0 194.8 292.5 24.5 57.0 292.5 233.8 408.3 778.7 2095.6	–	–	–	–	–
By Design Cohort study Cross–sectional	21 156	3419 67,538	22.2% [18.1; 27.0] 19.1% [16.8; 21.7]	25.7% [24.1; 27.3] 20.1% [19.8; 20.7]	Additional file 14	–	86.2% 97.6%	0.3 0.9	0.5 1.0	145.2 6504	–	–	–	–	–

K included studies numbers,

N included samples numbers

I² Statistic refereed to the percentage of variation across samples due to heterogeneity rather than chance

τ² Describe the extent of variation among the effects observed in different samples (between-sample variance)

H Describe confidence intervals of heterogeneity

^dSignificant differences between samples in meta-analysis

^eDetects publication bias in meta-analysis

^fRepresent the correlation between effect sizes and sample variation