Prevalence of Anxiety After Stroke : An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and aimsAnxiety after stroke is common and can be debilitating. A 2013 systematic review found the prevalence of post-stroke anxiety to be 18% when measured by interview and 25% when measured by rating scale (2). We aimed generate an updated measure of prevalence. Secondary aims were to measure the prevalence of anxiety subtypes; and explore the influence on prevalence of: the method of measuring anxiety, time post-stoke, and study setting.Methods A sensitive search of databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) was performed. Studies were screened against pre-specified criteria (3). Study data were extracted using a pre-piloted form and risk of bias within studies was assessed (4). A second reviewer screened a sample of papers and checked data extraction and quality appraisal. Interrater agreement was moderate to high for the abstract and full text screens (Cohenu2019s u03ba = 0.63 and 0.91, respectively). Meta-analysis, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3, with results presented as forest plots.Results22564 unique records were obtained. 80 publications reporting 51 studies were included in the review; all 51 were included in meta-analyses. 11 studies measure anxiety using clinical interviews; 40 used rating scalesPrevalence by clinical interview = 18.0% (95% CI: 13.3 u2013 22.6, I2 = 85%, Figure 1)Prevalence by rating scales = 25.1% (95% CI: 21.4 u2013 28.9, I2 = 96%, Figure 2)Heterogeneity in both meta-analyses was highCommunity-based studies reported a statistically significant lower prevalence than population-based studies: 16.0% (95% CI: 14.9 u2013 17.2) vs 25.6 (95% CI: 17.3 u2013 33.8). There was no statistically significant change in prevalence over time when measured by interview or rating scale. Higher quality studies tended towards lower prevalence. There was insufficient data to perform meta-analysis of anxiety subtypes. From four studies reporting anxiety subtype prevalence, there was no clear predominant subtype.SummaryAnxiety after stroke is common u2013 affecting around 1 in 5 stroke survivors u2013 although there was significant heterogeneity between studiesPractitioners should be aware of anxiety after stroke at all time points and settingsFuture research should focus on the prevalence of anxiety subtypes and interventions for post-stroke anxiety (1)References(1) Knapp, P. et al., 2017. Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Volume 5, p. CD008860.(2) Campbell Burton CA, Murray J, Holmes J, Astin F, Greenwood D, Knapp P. Frequency of anxiety after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. International Journal of Stroke. 2013; 8: p. 545-599.(3) Dunn-Roberts AS, Sahib N, Cook L, Knapp P. Frequency of anxiety after stroke, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018093718 Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018093718 (4) Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. [Online].; 2018 [cited 2018 August 12. Available from: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,000 |
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 ».