Psychological morbidity associated with hyperemesis gravidarum: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Psychological illness occurring in association with hyperemesis gravidarum ( HG ) has been widely reported. Objective To determine if there is a higher incidence of psychological morbidity in women with HG compared with women without significant nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Search strategy PubMed, MEDLINE , Embase and Psych INFO were searched up to September 2015. Selection criteria Articles referring to psychological morbidity in relation to HG . For meta‐analysis case–control studies using numerical scales to compare psychological symptoms. Data collection and analysis Articles were independently assessed for inclusion by two reviewers and methodology was appraised using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Comparison was made using the standard mean difference ( SMD ) in symptom scale scores. Main results In all, 59 articles were included in the systematic review, 12 of these were used in the meta‐analysis. Meta‐analysis of depression scale scores demonstrated a very large effect with statistically significantly higher depression scale scores in women with HG ( SMD 1.22; 95% CI 0.80–1.64; P ≤ 0.01) compared with controls. Meta‐analysis of anxiety scores demonstrated a large effect with statistically significantly higher anxiety disorder scale scores in women with HG ( SMD 0.86; 95% CI 0.53–1.19; P ≤ 0.01). In both analyses significant heterogeneity was identified (depression and HG I 2 = 94%, P ≤ 0.01; anxiety and HG I 2 = 84%, P = 0.02). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta‐analysis have shown a significantly increased frequency of depression and anxiety in women with HG . The findings should prompt service development for women with HG that includes provision of psychological care and support. Tweetable abstract Meta‐analysis demonstrates an increase in #PsychologicalMorbidity in women with #HyperemesisGravidarum
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".