Anxiety and depression in patients with osteoarthritis: impact and management challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are common psychological comorbidities that impact the quality of life (QoL) of patients. In this systematic review, we 1) determined the impact of anxiety and depression on outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 2) summarized unique challenges these comorbidities present to current OA management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases until April 2016. Full-text research articles published in English from the year 2000 onward with a sample size of >100 were included in this review. Eligible research articles were reviewed and the following data were extracted: study author(s), year of publication, study design, and key findings. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies were included in the present review. The present study found that both anxiety and/or depression were highly prevalent among patients with OA. Patients with OA diagnosed with these comorbidities experienced more pain, had frequent hospital visits, took more medication, and reported less optimal outcomes. Management strategies in the form of self-care, telephone support, audio/video education programs, and new pharmacotherapies were reported with favorable results. CONCLUSION: Anxiety and depression adversely impact the QoL of patients with OA. Physicians/caregivers are highly recommended to consider these comorbidities in patients with OA. Ultimately, a holistic individualized management approach is necessary to improve patient outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".