Prevalence and comorbidity rates of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder in epidemiological and clinical samples: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: European psychiatry 2025-01, Vol.68 (1), p.e11-35, Article e11
• Main Authors: Benarous, Xavier, Lahaye, Hélène, Consoli, Angèle, Cohen, David, Labelle, Réal, Guilé, Jean-Marc
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adults; aggression; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - diagnosis; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity - epidemiology; Bipolar disorder; Comorbidity; Data collection; depressive disorder; emotional dysregulation; Epidemiology; Estimates; Human health and pathology; Humans; irritability; Life Sciences; Longitudinal studies; Mental disorders; Meta-analysis; Mood Disorders - epidemiology; mood dysregulation; Neurodevelopmental disorders; pediatric depression; Pediatrics; Prevalence; Psychiatrics and mental health; Response rates; Systematic review; temper outburst
• ISSN: 0924-9338; 1778-3585; 1778-3585
• DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.1813

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence of disruptive mood dysregulation disorders (DMDD) in community-based and clinical populations. PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched, using terms specific to DMDD, for studies of prevalence and comorbidity rates conducted in youths below 18. 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. 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.