Depressed mood and anxiety as risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors have been implicated as both a cause and consequence of hypertension in the general population but are less understood in relation to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). The aims of this review were to (1) synthesize the existing literature examining associations between depression and/or anxiety in pregnancy and HDP and (2) assess if depression and/or anxiety in early pregnancy was a risk factor for HDP. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was conducted from inception to March 2020 using terms related to 'pregnancy', 'anxiety', 'depression', and 'hypertensive disorders'. English-language cohort and case-control studies were included if they reported: (a) the presence or absence of clinically significant symptoms of depression/anxiety, or a medical record diagnosis of depression or an anxiety disorder in pregnancy; (b) diagnosis of HDP; and/or (c) data comparing the depressed/anxious group to the non-depressed/anxious group on HDP. Data related to depression/anxiety, HDP, study characteristics, and aspects related to study quality were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses of estimated pooled relative risks (RRs) were conducted for depression/anxiety in pregnancy and HDP. RESULTS: In total, 6291 citations were retrieved, and 44 studies were included across 61.2 million pregnancies. Depression and/or anxiety were associated with HDP [RR = 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.54]. CONCLUSIONS: When measurement of anxiety or depression preceded diagnosis of hypertension, the association remained (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.07-1.50). Women experiencing depression or anxiety in pregnancy have an increased prevalence of HDP compared to their non-depressed or non-anxious counterparts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".