The literature search was conducted on 14 March 2024 by one review author (S.B.H.) with assistance from a university librarian. In addition to the primary literature search, a secondary search was conducted on 3 December 2025 by the same author to identify new, relevant studies. Sources included the following databases: Medline via PubMed (NLM), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO). The search employed various combinations of terms related to the target population (e.g., GI disorders, GI diseases, DGBI, IBD) and intervention/exposure (e.g., ARFID). The search was limited to publications from 2000 to 2025 to acknowledge corresponding ARFID symptoms in the prior diagnosis of Feeding Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood. No other limitations or filters were applied. The exact search strategy, including search terms and the number of records retrieved from each database in both primary and secondary searches, is detailed in the study protocol on PROSPERO. Additionally, one author (S.B.H.) manually screened bibliographies of the included studies by title and abstract to identify further eligible studies.

Studies were systematically screened in three consecutive rounds, according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, using the software programme Covidence [23]. Inclusion criteria: (1) original research including observational studies and qualitative studies and (2) studies published from the year 2000 to the present. Exclusion criteria: (1) reviews or meta‐analyses, experimental studies including animal studies or grey literature without available full texts and (2) studies not available in English or the Scandinavian language. Titles and abstracts were initially screened independently by two authors (S.B.H., C.H.). Subsequently, the same two authors conducted full‐text screenings. In cases of disagreement regarding eligibility or reasons for exclusion, discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third author (D.R.H.).

Descriptive data from the included articles were systematically extracted in Covidence based on predefined extraction sheets, which were developed through discussions among all three authors. One author (S.B.H.) manually gathered the relevant information, which included: study identification (author, title, publication year, country), study characteristics (study design, data collection method and sample size including both total population and ARFID population), clinical characteristics of the study population (age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, GI disorder, weight and nutritional status, ARFID diagnostic tool, validation of the tool, ARFID symptoms, symptom duration, treatment setting, treatment modality, medical consequences, psychosocial impairments and other comorbid psychiatric disorders). All three authors were eventually involved in organizing the data, upon which a narrative analysis was conducted. In cases where overlapping data were found from studies investigating the same population, both studies were included in the narrative analysis. For studies that divided male and female participants into subgroups (e.g., GI disorders or ARFID vs. non‐ARFID) and provided the exact number of each subgroup, the overall gender distribution of the study was calculated and reported in the results section.

The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool, which has demonstrated substantial interrater reliability as well as face and content validity [24]. This standardized tool, developed for systematic reviews that include heterogeneous studies, consisted of 13 items regarding study designs, research aims, strengths and limitations and so forth. Each item generated a score from 0 to 3 leading to a maximum score of 39 points which was converted into a percentage score. To enhance interrater reliability and in accordance with the Quads User Guide, all three authors independently scored one study and discussed the results [24]. Subsequently, all studies were appraised by two authors independently (S.B.H., C.H.). Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved through discussion and by consulting a third author (D.R.H.) to reach a final consensus. In accordance with the QuADS User Guide, no quality threshold for inclusion in the review was applied; however, results were narratively discussed and considered in the interpretation of the data [24].

A total of 1682 records were identified in the literature search. Of these, 195 duplicates were removed either manually by one author (S.B.H.) or automatically by Covidence and manually verified as true duplicates. After eligibility assessment, this review included 23 studies, of which nine were identified during an updated literature search [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. The complete study selection procedure was illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). Three included papers were based on the same study population [25, 34, 35]. One study explored the entire population [25], while the second and third studies focused exclusively on the adult population [34] or the paediatric population, respectively [35].

Study characteristics and demographic data were presented in Table 1. The total study population consisted of 6211 individuals with various GI disorders. Adult populations were investigated in 18 out of 23 studies, with participant ages ranging from 17 to 90 years [27, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47]. Four studies investigated paediatric populations, with participant ages ranging from 1 [33, 35, 45, 46] [33, 35, 45, 46] [25] [25]. Both male and female genders were represented across all studies; however, only eight [25, 26, 30, 31, 37, 38, 43, 47] [25, 26, 30, 31, 37, 38, 43, 47]. The remaining studies either reported only the number of male or female participants or described gender distribution as a percentage. In 19 [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45] [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45]. Two studies described mixed educational attainments and occupations of the included patients, and one study reported that 66% of the patients had education levels more [31, 38, 47] [31, 38, 47]. Socioeconomic status was not investigated in any of the remaining studies.

Twenty studies employed a cross‐sectional design [27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47]. Only two prospective cohort studies and one pilot case series were included [30, 33, 43]. Data collection primarily involved self‐reported surveys, retrospective chart reviews or a combination of both. Three studies incorporated structured or unstructured interviews to assess the ARFID diagnosis [30, 43, 46]. All studies were published in 2020 or subsequent years. A single study was conducted in Sweden, two in China and the United Kingdom, respectively, whereas the remaining were performed in the United States of America. The race of the participants was described in 11 studies, with seven studies including mixed races (e.g., White, Black, Asian) [25, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46].

Twenty studies were conducted in tertiary, specialized clinics or hospitals (e.g., units specialized in neurogastroenterology, IBD or nutrition). One study recruited patients through a research database and social media, in addition to enroling patients from a gastroenterology practice [31]. Only two studies included participants solely recruited from the general population [39, 41]. Sample sizes varied from 4 to 1704 GI patients [41, 43]. The majority of reported GI disorders were various types of DGBI, including conditions such as gastroparesis and functional dyspepsia, as well as several instances of IBD.

For this review, the respective definitions of ‘ARFID cases’ of the included studies were accepted; thus, all identified ARFID cases of the respective studies have been included in this review. However, it is important to highlight that the method of case identification and documentation of diagnostic criteria met varied substantially among studies, which is more thoroughly elaborated below and in Table 2. Therefore, for this review, cases are described cautiously as patients presenting with ARFID diagnosis or symptoms, depending on whether studies fully applied the DSM‐5 criteria or not.

Fourteen studies applied the full DSM‐5 criteria for the identification of ARFID cases [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 46]. Among these, nine studies conducted their data analyses solely on the basis of patients who fulfilled DSM‐5 criteria [28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 42, 43, 44, 46]. Five studies defined their ARFID populations as either ‘definite ARFID’ or ‘possible/potential ARFID’ (i.e., not enough information was available to establish the diagnosis with certainty) and combined both groups as ‘ARFID symptoms’ in their data analysis [25, 26, 27, 34, 35]. The remaining nine studies identified ARFID cases by the presence of ARFID symptoms and did not apply the full diagnostic criteria, lacking descriptions of medical consequences or psychosocial impairment [31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 47]. Overall, 1975 ARFID cases were identified, of which 651 cases fulfilled the complete DSM‐5 criteria.

The three prototypical ARFID subtypes were described and included in the definition of ARFID cases in all included studies, except for two [36, 46]. Fifteen studies provided the exact number of patients presenting with each specific symptom [25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45]. Nine of these studies reported that fear of aversive consequences or fear of GI complaints was the most frequent ARFID symptom [25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 44]. Eight studies indicated that patients often presented with concurrent manifestations and overlapping symptoms (e.g., lack of appetite and fear of aversive consequences) [30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 44, 45]. Four studies identified fear of nausea, bloating, abdominal pain and vomiting as primary reasons for avoidant and/or restrictive eating with patients likely fearing two or more GI symptoms [26, 34, 35, 44]. In five studies investigating adult populations, few or none of the included patients with ARFID symptoms or diagnosis exhibited sensory hypersensitivity [25, 27, 30, 34, 35]. None of the included studies specifically addressed whether the reported symptoms could be explained by the comorbid GI disorder.

The negative consequences of restricted eating, as defined in the DSM‐5 diagnostic criteria, were less consistently reported in the included studies. Medical consequences of ARFID, such as weight loss/inability to gain weight, nutritional deficiencies and need for supplementary feeding, were described in 10 studies and a total of 536 cases [26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45]. Weight status was described in 15 studies with body mass index (BMI) ranging from < 16 to 30.5 kg/m² [26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47]. Most studies reported mean BMIs within the normal range (i.e., 18.5–25 kg/m²) among patients with ARFID symptoms or diagnosis [29, 30, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47]. In two studies, the ARFID diagnosis was associated with lower BMI [29, 46]. One study reported vitamin or micronutrient deficiencies in 42% and osteoporosis or osteopenia in 39% of ARFID cases [26].

Functional or psychosocial interference including impact on daily life, academics/work, social life, family and so forth, was reported in 13 studies and 479 cases [26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 42, 43, 44]. Six of these studies did not specify the extent of psychosocial impairments [27, 29, 31, 35, 39, 45]. Seven studies reported comorbid psychiatric diagnoses of anxiety and/or depression, and in one study, ARFID was associated with increased anxiety and depression [26, 30, 31]. All four patients in the case series presented with comorbid psychiatric conditions, including depression and/or anxiety, obsessive–compulsive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [43]. No other psychiatric comorbidities were investigated.

The occurrence of ARFID cases in the included GI populations varied significantly, ranging from 6.3% to 82% in the adult populations and from 8% to 66.7% in the paediatric populations [33, 34, 35, 44]. One paediatric study reported the occurrence of ARFID in 42% based on self‐report and 55% based on primary caregiver report [45]. Occurrence of ARFID cases was generally higher in studies utilizing self‐reported surveys, ranging from 11% to 76.6% [32, 40], compared to studies evaluating medical journals in accordance with DSM‐5 criteria, which reported occurrence rates between 6.3% and 33% [34, 44]. One study that identified the ARFID diagnosis through clinical interviews in patients with complex eosinophilic esophagitis reported an occurrence of 37.4% [46]. In studies that did not apply the full diagnostic criteria, the reported prevalence of ARFID symptoms ranged from 10.2% to 55% [36, 45].

In 13 studies, the assessment of ARFID was conducted using the self‐reported Nine Item ARFID Screen (NIAS) tool [28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 47]. NIAS was developed based on the three prototypical ARFID manifestations, picky eating, poor appetite and fear of aversive consequences, and was validated as a screening tool for use in patients aged 10 years and older [32, 33]. Cut‐off values varied significantly among the included studies, with only seven studies using the validated values (subscales of either ≥ 10, ≥ 9 and/or ≥ 10 in picky eating, appetite and fear, respectively) [32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45]. In five studies, more stringent cut‐off values were applied (e.g., total score ≥ 24 or ≥ 12 on any subscale and at least one medical or psychosocial impairment) [28, 31, 36, 37, 47]. Four studies utilized different self‐reported surveys (e.g., Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire) to rule out other eating disorders and causes of patients' restrictive eating behaviours in accordance to the DSM‐5 exclusion criteria and recommendations from NIAS validation studies [26, 28, 29, 33].

One paediatric and one adult study utilized self‐reported semi‐structured Pica, ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI‐AR‐Q) based on DSM‐5 diagnostic criteria and the prototypical ARFID manifestations [33, 42]. The paediatric study itself reported moderate agreement between NIAS and PARDI‐AR‐Q [33]. However, only the use of PARDI‐AR‐Q in adolescent and adult populations is supported by findings from a separate validation study [33, 48]. Five studies employed trained coders to evaluate DSM‐5 diagnostic criteria and symptoms from medical records [25, 27, 34, 35, 44]. Two of these studies justified their choice of ARFID assessment tool by citing the unavailability of self‐reported surveys at the time [34, 35]. Two studies utilized a validated ARFID checklist based on DSM‐5 criteria [49] and a non‐validated, modified ARFID questionnaire based on the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Programme Questionnaire, respectively [26, 29]. Three studies defined ARFID cases based on DSM‐5 criteria using structured or unstructured clinical interviews such as Pica, ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview or Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire [30, 43, 46].

The duration of ARFID symptoms was scarcely investigated. One study reported that almost 40% of patients with ARFID symptoms began experiencing eating difficulties after their gastroparesis diagnosis [32]. Another study described a mean duration of GI symptoms of 5.4 years in patients with ARFID and DGBI prior to treatment [30]. This study also examined the impact of cognitive behavioural therapy in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic, demonstrating positive effects on GI‐specific anxiety and achieving desired weight gain. Patients expressed overall satisfaction with the treatment modality and treatment setting [30]. Furthermore, one study reported acceptability of a modified cognitive behavioural therapy for ARFID delivered via teletherapy, with preliminary reductions in ARFID‐related symptoms and impairment [43]. The remaining studies described various dietary treatments for GI disorders or lacked information on ARFID treatment modality or treatment setting altogether.

Specific demographical data of ARFID cases were reported in seven studies [26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36]. One study reported the racial composition of the ARFID population as 100% White, with no further specification of ethnic background, aside from noting that none of the participants identified as Latino/Hispanic [30].

The total QuADS scores and individual subscale points of the included studies are summarized in table format (Appendix S1). All studies provided no or very limited information on justification for analytic methods, consideration of stakeholders and evidence of required sample size. Overall, the theoretical underpinning of the research, research aims and research settings were well described. Study designs, study methods and sample sizes were generally similar across the studies. The mean total score was 57.6%, with scores ranging from 43.6% to 64.6% [30, 35].

In this review, ARFID cases are described in patients with GI disorders across an age span from 6 to 90 years, in line with Bourne et al. suggesting that ARFID can occur in all ages [11]. Both genders are represented in the 23 included studies, with females being the dominant gender in 19 of them. Similar gender distributions are observed in Cucinotta et al. [18]. However, this finding may be influenced by the underlying GI disorders and does not necessarily indicate a true female predominance in the prevalence of ARFID. The absence of studies addressing the socioeconomic status of the patients is consistent with findings from a recent scoping review by Willmott et al. [50].

Cross‐sectional studies and retrospective chart reviews comprise most included studies. This contrasts with an earlier systematic review by Gibson et al. on eating disorders and GI symptoms, where most included studies consist of case series and case reports [17]. Similarly, Bourne et al. primarily include case studies to evaluate clinical characteristics [11]. The findings of this review should be interpreted with consideration of the methodological constraints (e.g., selection and information bias) inherent to cross‐sectional and retrospective study designs. In the current review, the included studies utilize self‐reported surveys, evaluation of medical journals or a combination of both to identify ARFID cases, which aligns with the existing literature [6, 18].

The current review consists of 23 studies published between 2020 and 2025. All studies, except for a few from China, Sweden and the UK, originate from the USA. These findings align with a recent scoping review from Bourne et al. including 77 articles, most of which investigate clinical characteristics of ARFID and originate from Canada and USA, with a few studies from Asia and Western Europe [11]. The earlier implementation of the DSM‐5 ARFID diagnosis in the USA nearly a decade ago, compared to the still‐pending ICD‐11 in some countries, may explain the national difference in research focus.

All but two included studies in the current review are conducted in specialized inpatient or outpatient hospital settings. This trend of research being conducted in highly specialized units is also observed in studies by Gibson et al. and Sanchez‐Cerezo et al., who suggests that the complex and heterogeneous presentation of ARFID may be a contributing factor to the need for specialist involvement [6, 17]. Only one study additionally recruits patients from a research database and through social media, which may have introduced selection bias and reduced generalizability. In this review, total sample sizes are relatively small, consistent with other studies investigating ARFID in specific clinical populations [18, 25, 30, 51]. Studies investigating ARFID in non‐clinical populations generally consist of larger sample sizes [6]. The GI disorders investigated in included studies mainly concern DGBI and IBD. This corresponds to Gibson et al. investigating multiple GI disorders and suggesting that the occurrence of ARFID symptoms is increased in patients with IBD [17].

The definitions of ARFID cases in the studies included in this review are heterogeneous regarding the applied diagnostic tool and diagnostic criteria, and the presence of ARFID symptoms is most consistently reported. Few studies have applied the full DSM‐5 diagnostic criteria in the identification of ARFID cases, and specifically medical and/or psychosocial consequences of ARFID are scarcely described. Sanchez‐Cerezo et al. who investigated the epidemiology of paediatric ARFID, point out the same limitation in their included studies [6].

The most frequently reported ARFID symptom is fear of aversive consequences and GI complaints, such as abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Cucinotta et al. report similar findings, with 78%–92% of ARFID patients in gastroenterology practice exhibiting the aversive ARFID subtype as predominant [18]. Additionally, Sanchez‐Cerozo et al. describe GI symptoms or GI disorders in 19%–44% of patients with ARFID [6]. Hardly any of the included adult GI patients exhibit heightened sensory sensitivity as main motivation for their restrictive eating. According to Sanchez‐Cerozo et al., the sensory sensitivity prototype of ARFID is often observed in children with autism spectrum disorder [6]. However, this association is not examined in any of the studies included in this review.

Weight loss or inability to gain weight, nutritional deficiencies and the need for supplementary feeding are all reported in the ARFID population. This corresponds with findings by Sanchez‐Cerozo et al., indicating that ARFID patients may present with various physical symptoms due to low weight, weight loss or failure to thrive [6]. Cucinotta et al. also describe bradycardia and orthostatic instability as frequent clinical signs, which are not explored in our population [18]. Most included studies describing BMI as part of nutritional status report that the majority of identified ARFID cases fall within the normal weight category. This contrasts with findings by Cucinotta et al. observing moderate to severe malnutrition among patients with ARFID symptoms at time of admission to gastroenterology practices [18].

Psychosocial interference is a frequently reported consequence of ARFID among included patients, impacting academics, work, relationships and so forth. Nicholas et al. share similar findings, suggesting that patients with ARFID experience more social impairments than non‐ARFID patients [19]. Additionally, psychiatric comorbidities, such as anxiety and depression, are present in patients with GI disorders and ARFID. This corresponds to Sanchez‐Cerozo et al., who estimate that anxiety disorders in ARFID patients range from 9.1% to 72% [6]. Only one study reported comorbid obsessive‐compulsive disorder or attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder. None of the included studies investigated comorbid autism spectrum disorder, which is frequently reported by Bourne et al. [11].

Occurrence of ARFID cases among included patients with GI disorders ranges from 6.3% to 82% in the adult populations and from 8% to 66.7% in the paediatric populations [33, 34, 35, 44]. This wide variation in observed occurrence aligns with existing research by Sanchez‐Cerozo et al. estimating ARFID prevalence from 1.5% to 15% in paediatric gastroenterology clinics and from 32% to 64% in specialized feeding clinics [6]. Another recent scoping review by Mikhael‐Moussa et al. found that ARFID symptoms are present in 10%–80% of DGBI patients [52]. These variations may reflect the inconsistencies in case definition and methodology across the included studies. Most studies utilize the screening tool, NIAS, which has been reported with high sensitivity for investigating ARFID symptoms [6]. However, NIAS focuses exclusively on ARFID symptoms and does not include any measure of symptom‐caused impairment as defined in the diagnostic criteria, as also described by Bourne et al. and Mikhael‐Moussa et al. [11, 52]. The variation in both cut‐off values and use of diagnostic criteria during assessment of included patients is noteworthy. It is important to emphasize that a clinical diagnosis of ARFID can only be established through thorough clinical face‐to‐face interviews for diagnostic accuracy and for excluding differential diagnoses. Such clinical assessments are barely performed in the included studies, thus limiting the validity of identified ARFID cases and estimated occurrences. However, one study estimated the prevalence of ARFID among children with eosinophilic esophagitis to be 37.4% based on clinical interviews [46]. According to Bourne et al., the Pica, ARFID and Rumination Disorder Interview ARFID Questionnaire (PARDI‐AR‐Q) is a promising tool not only for ARFID symptom screening but also for diagnostic purposes because it includes all diagnostic criteria [11]. Interestingly, one of our included studies reports moderate agreement between NIAS and PARDI‐AR‐Q in a child and adolescent population [33]. Additional symptoms or motivations for restrictive eating patterns may not be identified when solely using a standardized screening tool. Retrospective evaluation of medical journals by trained coders generally seem to compose lower occurrence of ARFID ranging from 6.3% to 33% [34, 44]. This corresponds to Sanchez‐Cerozo et al., who estimate ARFID prevalence to be between 5% and 22.5% using this method [6].

In one study, almost 40% of patients with ARFID symptoms began experiencing eating difficulties after their gastroparesis diagnosis [32]. However, none of the other included studies investigated whether symptoms of GI disorders preceded the onset of ARFID or if ARFID symptoms developed first and potentially exacerbated GI issues. Accordingly, the included studies do not explicitly address whether the ARFID symptoms are a consequence of the GI disorder or vice versa, which is consistent with the challenges highlighted by Staller et al. regarding the diagnosis of ARFID in GI populations [20]. The mean symptom duration prior to treatment is found to be 5.4 years among included participants [30]. Bourne et al. and Sanchez‐Cerozo et al. both report that patients with ARFID experience a longer duration of illness prior to diagnosis compared to other eating disorders [6, 11]. These findings highlight the importance of healthcare professionals recognizing ARFID symptoms and the necessity for additional longitudinal studies to establish the temporal relationship between GI symptoms and ARFID. Understanding the sequence of these conditions is essential, as it could significantly influence early detection efforts, inform targeted treatment strategies and guide the development of effective preventive measures.

In our population, cognitive behavioural therapy is the only treatment described and shown to be effective [30, 43]. Bourne et al. further explore family‐based therapy and pharmacological treatments, including mirtazapine and olanzapine, with a multimodal approach in both paediatric and adult populations [11].

Demographic information specific to patients with ARFID symptoms or diagnosis is scarcely examined in the included studies. One study exclusively consists of White participants, similar to findings by Willmott et al. [30, 50]. The included study does not further specify ethnicity of the participants, other than none identified as Latino/Hispanic.

A major strength of this systematic review is the thorough literature search conducted in collaboration with a university librarian across four different databases. This approach ensures a precise and replicable procedure throughout the review. Also, an updated literature search was conducted prior to publication to identify and include newly published relevant studies. We have decided not to limit the search by language restrictions, instead applying them during the article screening to ensure that no additional studies with an English or Scandinavian version available elsewhere are discounted. Furthermore, we have expanded the publication year range to include studies from 2000 up to and including the time of the literature search to acknowledge the prior diagnosis of Feeding Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood and corresponding symptoms of ARFID. We have determined to include studies employing various methods of data description and adherence to the diagnostic criteria, including case definitions, acknowledging that not all participants necessarily meet the diagnostic criteria for ARFID. This approach is to accommodate different diagnostic tools, as well as the relatively recent implementation of the diagnosis. This approach has both strengths and limitations, as it has enabled us to gather a larger data set that highlights the importance of the topic, but it also requires caution to avoid overuse of ARFID terminology within this population. The article screening and quality assessment are conducted independently by three authors, significantly reducing the risk of selection bias. Anticipating the inclusion of heterogeneous studies, we have chosen to assess the risk of bias using the QuADS tool. However, the observed similarity in study design among the studies included leads to less variation in the accomplished scores. The overall quality scores of the included studies are relatively equal, raising questions about the importance of the chosen assessment tool. A limitation of this review is that data extraction is performed by one author and is only later approved by the remaining two authors.

In light of the recent implementation of the ARFID diagnosis in ICD‐11 and before that also in the DSM‐5, there is a need for systematic research into this relatively newly described condition. This review identifies several important gaps in the existing literature. Future research should focus on consistent case identification based on validated diagnostic tools which explore the complete ARFID criteria as defined in the diagnostic manuals. Further, attention should be paid to the challenging differentiation of GI symptom attribution in patients with both ARFID and GI disorders. Further longitudinal research is essential to assess the prevalence, identify risk factors and long‐time progression of ARFID in patients with GI disorders. Future studies should aim to include diverse populations and obtain relevant information, such as demographic data, nutritional status and symptom duration, to enhance the generalizability and applicability of findings. Addressing these gaps will be crucial for developing effective screening, diagnostic and treatment protocols to improve patient outcomes in this population.