MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119679721 · doi:10.1186/s12876-020-01593-5

The level and prevalence of depression and anxiety among patients with different subtypes of irritable bowel syndrome: a network meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W3119679721 on OpenAlexaff
Zhichao Hu, Meixuan Li, Liang Yao, Yinshu Wang, Enkang Wang, Jianye Yuan, Fengyun Wang, Kehu Yang, Zhaoxiang Bian, Linda L. D. Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsIrritable bowel syndromeMedicineInternal medicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Meta-analysisConfidence intervalConstipationDiarrheaGastroenterologyCochrane LibraryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a very common functional bowel disorder. However, the difference of depression and anxiety comorbidities among different IBS subtypes is still not well evaluated. This study aims to investigate the difference in the level and prevalence of depression and anxiety among healthy controls and patients with different subtypes of IBS. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched systematically until August 17, 2020. Studies that investigated depression and/or anxiety levels or prevalence among different IBS-subtype patients measured at baseline or the same point were included. Network meta-analysis was conducted to analyze standardized mean difference (SMD) of anxiety and depression levels, and single arm meta-analysis was performed for prevalence of anxiety and depression among different IBS subtypes. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 7095 participants were included. Network meta-analyses results showed healthy controls had a lower level of depression than IBS with mixed symptoms of constipation and diarrhea (IBS-M) [SMD = - 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.21, - 0.92], IBS with constipation (IBS-C) (SMD = - 1.53; 95% CI - 2.13, - 0.93) and IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D)(SMD = - 1.41; 95% CI - 1.97, - 0.85), while no significant difference was found between IBS unclassified (IBS-U) and healthy controls (SMD = - 0.58; 95% CI - 2.15, 1.00). There was also no significant difference in the level of depression among different IBS subtypes patients. The results of anxiety were similar to depression. Ranking probability showed that IBS-M was associated with the highest level of depression and anxiety symptoms, followed by IBS-C/IBS-D and IBS-U. Single-arm meta-analysis showed IBS-C had the highest prevalence of depression (38%) and anxiety (40%), followed by IBS-D, IBS-M and IBS-U. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that IBS-M was more likely to be associated with a higher level of depression and anxiety, and the prevalence of depression and anxiety in IBS-C was highest. The psychological screening and appropriate psychotherapy are needed for patients with IBS-C, IBS-D and IBS-M instead of IBS-U.

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)0.031
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.054
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations92
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207