We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence of disruptive mood dysregulation disorders (DMDD) in community-based and clinical populations.
Methods
PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched, using terms specific to DMDD, for studies of prevalence and comorbidity rates conducted in youths below 18.
Results
Fourteen studies reporting data from 2013 to 2023 were included. The prevalence of DMDD in the community-based samples was 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–6.0) and 21.9% (95% CI, 15.5–29.0) in the clinical population. The differences in the identification strategy of DMDD were associated with significant heterogeneity between studies in the community-based samples, with a prevalence of 0.82% (95% CI, 0.11–2.13) when all diagnosis criteria were considered. Anxiety, depressive disorders, and ADHD were the most frequent comorbidity present with DMDD. The association with other neurodevelopmental disorders remained poorly investigated.
Conclusions
Caution is required when interpreting these findings, considering the quality of the reviewed data and the level of unexplained heterogeneity among studies. This review stresses the importance of considering a strict adhesion to DMDD criteria when exploring its clinical correlates.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.