The prevalence of anxiety in adult‐onset isolated dystonia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinically relevant anxiety and anxiety disorders are commonly associated with adult-onset isolated dystonia, contributing substantially to quality-of-life impairment in patients with this movement disorder. However, the prevalence of anxiety symptoms and disorders in adult-onset isolated dystonia remains unclear. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of anxiety symptoms/disorders in adult-onset isolated dystonia. METHODS: Studies reporting the prevalence of anxiety disorders determined through diagnostic interviews or from clinically relevant anxiety symptoms detected with rating scales were identified in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO). The gray literature was also examined to detect studies not captured through the search strategy. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 6535 citations; 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall prevalence of clinically relevant anxiety symptoms and anxiety disorders for cervical dystonia was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20% to 60%); for studies examining cranial dystonia it was 25% (95% CI 21% to 30%); for studies exploring mixed populations of adult-onset isolated dystonia it was 33.3% (95% CI 22% to 43%), 26% (95% CI 12% to 40%) for laryngeal dystonia, and 32% (95% CI 21% to 43%) for upper limb dystonia. Social phobia was the most prevalent anxiety disorder across the different forms of adult-onset isolated dystonia. Between-study statistical heterogeneity was high for most prevalence estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant anxiety and anxiety disorders are common across all forms of adult-onset isolated dystonia. New research avenues should explore and plan the development of pathways of care targeting these important non-motor features.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".