Infections and obsessive-compulsive disorder - results from a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder affecting 1.3% of the population worldwide where both genetic and environmental factors, such as perinatal events and neuroinflammation, are thought to contribute to the etiology of the disorder. In the past, the description of clinical entities such as Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS), in which an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome with prominent obsessive-compulsive features emerges in children infected with group-A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (GABHS), sparked the hypothesis that infections may be a risk-modifying factor for the development of OCD. Along with streptococcal infections, other pathogens such as Toxoplasma gondii have been implicated in the pathophysiological models of the disorder, although causal associations have not been established for any of beforementioned pathogens. Objectives To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis about the presence of biological evidence of infection in patients diagnosed with OCD. Methods We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration CRD42021223415) by performing a standardized electronic database search in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus. Search was conducted on 17/10/2022. Eligible papers included case-control and cohort studies using a comparator group, that tested for specific biomarkers providing evidence of infection in patients diagnosed with OCD; exclusion criteria included studies without quantitative or qualitative measures of infection, case reports, systematic or scope reviews, and animal studies. Selection process was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines. Study quality was assessed through Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results We identified 8911 records through the search after duplicate removal. A total of 22 studies met inclusion criteria after selection process, and 15 were eligible for meta-analysis. Most evidence concerned Toxoplasma gondii (10 studies), and patients with OCD appear to have higher odds of being infected compared to controls, with a meta-analytic odds ratio of 2.39 (95% IC 1.60-3.58), when comparing 467 patients with 5411 controls. However, most studies were methodologically heterogeneous, which compromises the interpretation of meta-analytic results. Information regarding other agents, including GABHS, Borna disease virus and Toxocara canis was gathered but due to an insufficient number of papers it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for each of them. Conclusions Our work suggests that albeit exhaustively reported in the literature, there is no strong evidence of the over-representation of biomarkers of infection in patients with OCD compared to control volunteers. Methodologically robust studies are needed to further test this hypothesis. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».