Depression, anxiety, stress, and dysmenorrhea: a protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhea is one of the most common menstrual disorders and is influenced by various factors. Psychological disorders including anxiety, depression, and stress have been suggested as influencing dysmenorrhea, but previous findings are inconsistent. This study will investigate the relationship between depression/anxiety/stress and dysmenorrhea using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Online databases including PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase will be searched. Appropriate keywords and MeSH terms will be used to retrieve the journal papers published from 1990 until the end of December 2019. To improve search coverage, the reference lists of all included studies will be reviewed to find eligible papers. Inclusion criteria include the following: descriptive, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies; the relationship between depression/anxiety/stress and dysmenorrhea being an objective of the study; and published in peer-reviewed journals. The paper selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of selected studies will be performed independently by two researchers, and disagreements will be resolved through discussions. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used to assess the quality of selected studies. A quantitative synthesis will be performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) via the STATA software, if retrieving enough number of studies with no severe methodological heterogeneities. Otherwise, qualitative synthesis will be used to report the findings. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review on this topic. Performing an inclusive search in major databases over a wide timescale is one key strength of the proposed study and will maximize the coverage of the original research studies on this topic. Results of present study are expected to lead to deeper understanding the relationship between common mental health conditions and dysmenorrhea. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018102199.
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 | 0.116 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.013 |
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".