Influencing factors of anxiety and depression in mixed-age patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the incidence of anxiety and depression in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients has gradually increased. Critically, psychological comorbidities not only compromise quality of life but independently predict adverse IBD outcomes including heightened relapse risk and treatment non-adherence. Therefore, the aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the influencing factors of anxiety and depression in IBD patients and to provide a scientific basis for the effective prevention. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Library until 30 January 2024. Included studies were cross-sectional or cohort designs. Quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Data analysis used Stata 16.0 with fixed/random-effects models. Publication bias was assessed via Begg test and funnel plots. Twenty factors (e.g. age, marriage, education) were extracted. From 11, 755 citations, 28 studies (58,064 patients) met criteria. Overall, factors influencing anxiety in IBD patients include gender (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.68-2.04), disease activity (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.09), IBD-related surgery (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.37-0.79) and non-white ethnicity (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.88). Factors associated with depression in patients include gender (OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.62-1.86), disease activity (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.50-2.39), IBD-related surgery (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.20-1.92), male gender (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.33-1.90), perianal disease (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.35-2.55), higher education (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.22-1.98), steroid use (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.22-3.45), non-white ethnicity (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84) and family history (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33-1.97). Disease activity has a relatively high impact on the emotion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, and gender differences and side effects of therapeutic drugs also play an auxiliary role. Therefore, early intervention should be carried out for the existence of modifiable risk factors of anxiety and depression in IBD patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".