MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions (other than pharmacological, psychosocial or psychological) for treating antenatal depression

2008· reference-entry· en· W4229932255 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy‐Lee Dennis, Kim Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionAnxietyChildbirthCochrane LibraryMEDLINEPsychiatryCINAHLPregnancyDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although pregnancy was once thought of as a time of emotional well-being for many women, conferring 'protection' against psychiatric disorders, a recent meta-analysis of 21 studies suggests the mean prevalence rate for depression across the antenatal period is 10.7%, ranging from 7.4% in the first trimester to a high of 12.8% in the second trimester. Due to maternal treatment preferences and potential concerns about fetal and infant health outcomes, non-pharmacological treatment options are needed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, on mothers and their families, of non-pharmacological/psychosocial/psychological interventions compared with usual antepartum care in the treatment of antenatal depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (August 2007), the Cochrane Collaboration Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) (January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2007), EMBASE (1980 to January 2007) and CINAHL (1982 to January 2007). We scanned secondary references and contacted experts in the field to identify other published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological/psychosocial/psychological interventions to treat antenatal depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently participated in the evaluation of methodological quality and data extraction. . MAIN RESULTS: We included one US three-armed randomised controlled trial in this review, incorporating 61 outpatient antenatal women who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-IV criteria for major depression. Maternal massage, compared to non-specific acupuncture (control group), did not significantly decrease the number of women diagnosed with clinical depression immediately post-treatment (one trial, n = 38; risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 2.53) or at final assessment at 10 weeks' postpartum (one trial, n = 32; RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.01). Acupuncture specifically treating symptoms of depression, compared to non-specific acupuncture, did not significantly decrease the number of women diagnosed with clinical depression immediately post-treatment (one trial, n = 35; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13) or at final assessment at 10 weeks' postpartum (one trial, n = 32; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.39). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is inconclusive to allow us to make any recommendations for massage therapy or depression-specific acupuncture for the treatment of antenatal depression. The included trial was too small with a non-generalisable sample, to make any recommendations.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207