A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Dual Diagnosis Patient Profile in the Clinical Setting

Objective: The authors aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the proportion of dual diagnosis patients in the clinical setting. Methods: Researchers searched MEDLINE and Google Scholar from inception until July 2024. Observational, retrospective, and cohort studies that reported the proportion of patients with dual diagnosis in a clinical setting were included. Random-effects meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment were conducted, along with subgroup and sensitivity analysis. Results: The sample included 32 studies (cumulative N = 2,805,009) and found high heterogeneity among the studies, which persisted in the subgroup analysis. The median proportion was 47.90% (ranging from 5.9% to 91.55%), with a pooled proportion of 44.70% (95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.63). Conclusions: Dual diagnosis is highly prevalent in clinical settings with variability in prevalence based on different settings, assessment methods, and country of origin. Further research on dual diagnosis and due recognition for integrated management are required.