MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312225937 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000002098

Effects of nutritional interventions on the severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms of women in the menopausal transition and menopause: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

2022· review· en· W4312225937 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Bartelli Grigolon, Gilciane Ceolin, Yan Deng, Alexander Bambokian, Elena Koning, Jennifer Fabe, Maiara Cristina De Lima, Fernando Gerchman, Cláudio N. Soares, Elisa Brietzke, Fabiano A. Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMenopauseAnxietyPsychological interventionMeta-regressionDepressive symptomsClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Depression and anxiety may significantly affect women during the menopausal transition. In addition to traditional treatment strategies such as hormone therapy, antidepressants, and psychotherapy, nutritional interventions have been increasingly studied, but there is no consensus about their role in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of nutritional interventions on the severity of depressive (DS) and anxiety (AS) symptoms in women during the menopausal transition or menopausal years. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Electronic search using databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase to identify articles indexed until January 31, 2021, focusing on randomized placebo-controlled trials documenting the effect of diet, food supplements, and nutraceuticals on DS and AS. FINDINGS: Thirty-two studies were included (DS, n = 15; AS, n = 1; DS and AS combined, n = 16). We found two studies that demonstrated data combined with other interventions: one with lifestyle interventions (vitamin D plus lifestyle-based weight-loss program) and another with exercise (omega 3 plus exercise). The pooled effect size favored the intervention group over placebo for both DS and AS (DS: standardized mean difference, -0.35 [95% confidence interval, -0.68 to -0.03; P = 0.0351]; AS: standardized mean difference, -0.74 [95% CI, -1.37 to -0.11; P = 0.0229]). There was significant heterogeneity in the pooled results, which can be attributed to differences in assessment tools for depression and anxiety as well as the variety of nutritional interventions studied. The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant effect of menopausal status (perimenopausal or menopausal) but not the type or duration of nutritional intervention. Older age was the only significant predictor of the effect size of nutritional interventions in the meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nutritional interventions are promising tools for the management of mood/anxiety symptoms in women during the menopausal transition and in postmenopausal years. Because of significant heterogeneity and risk of bias among studies, the actual effect of different approaches is still unclear.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.045
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause SocietySame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207