Prevalence of depression and its potential contributing factors in patients with enterostomy: A meta-analytical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In patients with intestinal pathologies, the placement of a stoma bag affects multiple aspects of their perceived quality of life. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy and to determine the underlying factors that could explain the potential heterogeneity of this prevalence. Methods: Relevant published studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science until May 2022. The random-effects model was used to determine the pooled prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy using cross-sectional studies from various countries. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to identify factors contributing to heterogeneity. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized studies. Results: 2 = 94.513). The meta-regression found that mean age and gender were not significant moderators for the observed heterogeneity in prevalence. Subgroup analysis according to the indications for enterostomy formation showed that the prevalence of depression was highest in patients with colorectal cancer, at 34.4% (95% CI: 27.2-42.4%). Subgroup analysis by region showed that patients in Africa had the highest prevalence of depression, at 88.2% (95% CI: 76.1-94.6%), compared to other regions. Subgroup analysis by stoma indication was not significant. Conclusion: This meta-analysis reports that the pooled prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy is 41.6%. Indications for enterostomy formation, as well as geographical region, were identified as potential sources of heterogeneity. These findings highlight the need for appropriate psychosocial support and interventions at different stages of enterostomy placement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".