Prevalence of Depression During Pregnancy: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Current estimates of the prevalence of depression during pregnancy vary widely. A more precise estimate is required to identify the level of disease burden and develop strategies for managing depressive disorders. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of depression during pregnancy by trimester, as detected by validated screening instruments (ie, Beck Depression Inventory, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score) and structured interviews, and to compare the rates among instruments. DATA SOURCES: Observational studies and surveys were searched in MEDLINE from 1966, CINAHL from 1982, EMBASE from 1980, and HealthSTAR from 1975. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A validated study selection/data extraction form detailed acceptance criteria. Numbers and percentages of depressed patients, by weeks of gestation or trimester, were reported. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two reviewers independently extracted data; a third party resolved disagreement. Two raters assessed quality by using a 12-point checklist. A random effects meta-analytic model produced point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was examined with the chi(2) test (no systematic bias detected). Funnel plots and Begg-Mazumdar test were used to assess publication bias (none found). Of 714 articles identified, 21 (19,284 patients) met the study criteria. Quality scores averaged 62%. Prevalence rates (95% CIs) were 7.4% (2.2, 12.6), 12.8% (10.7, 14.8), and 12.0% (7.4, 16.7) for the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively. Structured interviews found lower rates than the Beck Depression Inventory but not the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. CONCLUSION: Rates of depression, especially during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, are substantial. Clinical and economic studies to estimate maternal and fetal consequences are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".