Beyond rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis of the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is heterogenous with reports from 2.4 % to 85.2 % and 15 %–73.2 %, respectively. The present study provides meta-analytic current, and lifetime estimates of anxiety and depressive disorders amongst those living with RA. An online search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and WoS was conducted. Of the 3801 articles identified, 13 and 22 studies were coded for anxiety or depressive disorder prevalence in RA, respectively. Studies were included if they prospectively examined individuals (age >16) with RA, used semi-structured diagnostic interviews, and reported lifetime or current anxiety or depressive disorder comorbidity. Data were analyzed using a Bayesian multilevel modelling approach, revealing current and lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders to be 13.5 % CI 95 % (9.2–17.3) and 22.2 %, CI 95 % (15.9–29.1), respectively. Models also demonstrated the current and lifetime prevalence of depressive disorders to be 17.9 % CI 95 % (10.1–27.1) and 32.4 %, CI 95 % (18.3–47.6), respectively. Moderator analyses revealed numerically greater rates of GAD and MDD than other anxiety or depressive disorders. There were too few estimates to extensively model several moderators or to conduct exhaustive comparisons of demographic populations requiring greater representation such as males, non-White participants, and people with young adult RA onset. The prevalence and risk for comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders in RA is extremely high. Routine screening and ongoing monitoring of individuals with RA for comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders is important to support improved prognosis. • Meta-Analytic lifetime prevalence estimate of anxiety disorders in RA of 22.2 %. • Aggregate prevalence of current anxiety disorders in those with RA of 13.5 %. • Meta-Analytic lifetime prevalence estimate of depressive disorders in RA of 32.4 %. • Aggregate prevalence of current depressive disorders in those with RA of 17.9 %. • GAD and MDD were identified as the disorders with greatest risk in RA.
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 | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.068 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".