Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Interventions for Depression and Anxiety in Persons With Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are very common in persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can lead to adverse outcomes. By appropriately treating these comorbidities, disease-specific outcomes and quality of life may be improved. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature from controlled trials of treatments for depression and anxiety in persons with RA. METHODS: We searched multiple online databases from inception until March 25, 2015, without restrictions on language, date, or location of publication. We included controlled trials conducted in persons with RA and depression or anxiety. Two independent reviewers extracted information including trial and participant characteristics. The standardized mean differences (SMDs) of depression or anxiety scores at postassessment were pooled between treatment and comparison groups, stratified by active versus inactive comparators. RESULTS: From 1291 unique abstracts, we included 8 RA trials of depression interventions (6 pharmacological, 1 psychological, 1 both). Pharmacological interventions for depression with inactive comparators (n = 3 trials, 143 participants) did not reduce depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.27 to 0.85), although interventions with active comparators (n = 3 trials, 190 participants) did improve depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.79; 95% CI, -1.34 to -0.25). The single psychological trial of depression treatment in RA did not improve depressive symptoms (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.96 to 0.08). Seven of the trials had an unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Few trials examining interventions for depression or anxiety in adults with RA exist, and the level of evidence is low to moderate because of the risk of bias and small number of trials.
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 | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".