MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011737466 · doi:10.1186/s41927-019-0111-6

The incidence of depression and anxiety in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3011737466 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie YE Park, Alyssa Howren, Enav Z. Zusman, John M. Esdaile, Mary A. De Vera

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Rheumatology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsArthritis Research Centre of CanadaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)CINAHLIncidence (geometry)Odds ratioAnkylosing spondylitisMeta-analysisPopulationRelative riskPsychiatryEpidemiologySystematic reviewHazard ratioMEDLINEInternal medicineConfidence intervalPsychological interventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As awareness for the importance of mental health continues to expand in rheumatology, it is important to understand the epidemiology of psychiatric complications in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with the ultimate goal of future prevention and improved quality of care. This study aims to review evidence on the incidence and determinants of depression and/or anxiety among patients with AS. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL Complete, and PsycINFO for full-length observational studies that involved a sample or population of patients with AS and assessed depression and/or anxiety. Primary outcomes extracted were: 1) risk estimates for depression and/or anxiety (e.g., relative risk [RR]); and 2) determinants or factors identified as independent predictors of depression and/or anxiety using multivariable regression approaches and corresponding estimates (e.g., odds ratios [OR]). Where relevant, we pooled estimates using random effects models. RESULTS: Out of 783 titles from our search strategy, we reviewed 39 manuscripts. Four studies assessed the incidence of depression and meta-analyzing reported estimates from three of these studies yielded a pooled RR of 1.51 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.79). Differences in risk of depression among men and women with AS were inconclusive, suggesting need for further study. The incidence of anxiety was comparatively less studied with only one included study reporting a hazard ratio of 1.85 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.49). Education level was a key determinant, with lower levels associated with higher odds of depression (OR 6.65; 9% CI 1.36 to 32.51) and anxiety (OR 9.31; 9% CI 1.39 to 62.19) among AS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis shows an increased risk of depression and anxiety among patients with AS. These findings suggest the importance of monitoring and care for psychiatric conditions in AS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.039
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC RheumatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207