MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134175910 · doi:10.1186/s40738-021-00098-3

The prevalence of depression symptoms among infertile women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3134175910 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFertility Research and Practice · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisPsycINFOCochrane LibraryMedicineDepression (economics)Confidence intervalInfertilityAnxietyMEDLINEScopusDemographyMental healthPublication biasPsychiatryInternal medicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Infertile women’s mental health problems, including depression, are key fertility health issues that affect infertile women more severely than infertile men. Depression may threaten the health of individuals and reduce the quality of their lives. Considering the role and impact of depression on responses to infertility treatments, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the prevalence of depression symptoms among infertile women. Methods International databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO), national databases (SID and Magiran), and Google Scholar were searched by two independent reviewers for articles published from 2000 to April 5, 2020. The search procedure was performed in both Persian and English using keywords such as “depression,” “disorders,” “infertility,” “prevalence,” and “epidemiology.” The articles were evaluated in terms of their titles, abstracts, and full texts. The reviewers evaluated the quality of the articles using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, after which they analyzed the findings using STATA version 14. The I 2 and Egger’s tests were performed to examine heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. Results Thirty-two articles were subjected to the meta-analysis, and a random effects model was used in the examination given the heterogeneity of the articles. The samples in the reviewed studies encompassed a total of 9679 infertile women. The lowest and highest pooled prevalence rates were 21.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.61–34.42), as determined using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and 52.21% (95% CI: 43.51–60.91), as ascertained using the Beck Depression Inventory, respectively. The pooled prevalence values of depression among infertile women were 44.32% (95% CI: 35.65–52.99) in low- and middle-income countries and 28.03% (95% CI: 19.61–36.44) in high-income countries. Conclusion The prevalence of depression among infertile women was higher than that among the general population of a given country. Especially in low- and middle-income countries, appropriate measures, planning, and policy that target the negative effects of depression on infertile women’s lives should be established to reduce related problems.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.239 · 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