MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225727830 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.806872

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4225727830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elisabeth S. Linde, Tibor V. Varga, Amy Clotworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychologyPsychiatryMedicineVirologyDiseaseOutbreakInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions may contribute to a deterioration in mental health; individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may be particularly affected. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects of the current pandemic on people diagnosed with OCD, and whether pandemics may affect the development of OCD symptoms. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using NCBI PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar on February 9, 2021. Research articles related to OCD and COVID-19 or other pandemics were attempted to be identified using pre-defined search terms. Case reports, clinical guidelines, letters, and clinical research articles including ≥100 participants were included; reviews were excluded. The systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the included clinical research articles. Results: A total of 79 articles were included in the full-text assessment. Of these, 59 were clinical research articles, two were clinical guidelines, six were case reports, and 12 were letters. The research articles examined OCD symptoms in adult patients with diagnosed OCD, the general population, pregnant women, healthcare workers, students, and young adults, children, and adolescents. Only one study on OCD in previous pandemics was identified. Conclusion: This systematic review found that people both with and without diagnosed OCD prior to the pandemic generally experienced a worsened landscape of symptoms of OCD during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the responses are heterogeneous and many factors other than the pandemic seemed to affect the development of OCD symptoms. To prevent the impairment of symptoms and the development of new cases, close monitoring of patients with OCD and education of the general public is essential. Literature is still limited; thus, multinational and cross-cultural, longitudinal studies are warranted to gain further insights on this topic.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207