17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is meat consumption associated with depression? A meta-analysis of observational studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A number of epidemiological studies have examined the effect of meat consumption on depression. However, no conclusion has been reached. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between meat consumption and depression.

          Methods

          The electronic databases of PUBMED and EMBASE were searched up to March 2017, for observational studies that examined the relationship between meat consumption and depression. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the prevalence of depression and the relative risk (RR) for the incidence of depression, as well as their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated respectively (the highest versus the lowest category of meat consumption).

          Results

          A total of eight observational studies (three cross-sectional, three cohort and two case-control studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Specifically, six studies were related to the prevalence of depression, and the overall multi-variable adjusted OR suggested no significant association between meat consumption and the prevalence of depression (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22; P = 0.469). In contrast, for the three studies related to the incidence of depression, the overall multi-variable adjusted RR evidenced an association between meat consumption and a moderately higher incidence of depression (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.24; P = 0.013).

          Conclusions

          Meat consumption may be associated with a moderately higher risk of depression. However, it still warrants further studies to confirm such findings due to the limited number of prospective studies.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-017-1540-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exercise treatment for depression: efficacy and dose response.

              This study, conducted between 1998 and 2001 and analyzed in 2002 and 2003, was designed to test (1) whether exercise is an efficacious treatment for mild to moderate major depressive disorder (MDD), and (2) the dose-response relation of exercise and reduction in depressive symptoms. The study was a randomized 2x2 factorial design, plus placebo control. All exercise was performed in a supervised laboratory setting with adults (n =80) aged 20 to 45 years diagnosed with mild to moderate MDD. Participants were randomized to one of four aerobic exercise treatment groups that varied total energy expenditure (7.0 kcal/kg/week or 17.5 kcal/kg/week) and frequency (3 days/week or 5 days/week) or to exercise placebo control (3 days/week flexibility exercise). The 17.5-kcal/kg/week dose is consistent with public health recommendations for physical activity and was termed "public health dose" (PHD). The 7.0-kcal/kg/week dose was termed "low dose" (LD). The primary outcome was the score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD(17)). The main effect of energy expenditure in reducing HRSD(17) scores at 12 weeks was significant. Adjusted mean HRSD(17) scores at 12 weeks were reduced 47% from baseline for PHD, compared with 30% for LD and 29% for control. There was no main effect of exercise frequency at 12 weeks. Aerobic exercise at a dose consistent with public health recommendations is an effective treatment for MDD of mild to moderate severity. A lower dose is comparable to placebo effect.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                zhangyi0205@csu.edu.cn
                411859291@qq.com
                179579905@qq.com
                151486650@qq.com
                397969391@qq.com
                1657582599@qq.com
                sfp1988@hotmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                28 December 2017
                28 December 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 409
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 7615, GRID grid.452223.0, Department of Infectious Disease, , Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, ; Changsha, Hunan Province 410008 China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 7615, GRID grid.452223.0, Department of Orthopaedics, , Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, ; Changsha, Hunan Province 410008 China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0379 7164, GRID grid.216417.7, Hunan Key Laboratory of Joint Degeneration and Injury, , Central South University, ; Changsha, Hunan Province 410008 China
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0379 7164, GRID grid.216417.7, Hunan Clinical Research Center of Joint Surgery, , Central South University, ; Changsha, Hunan Province 410008 China
                Article
                1540
                10.1186/s12888-017-1540-7
                5745880
                29282023
                31861154-9c55-4c99-ace5-c776404b87e8
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 6 June 2017
                : 13 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University
                Award ID: 2017zzts233
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: China Scholarship Council
                Award ID: 201706370196
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                meat,depression,meta-analysis,observational studies
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                meat, depression, meta-analysis, observational studies

                Comments

                Comment on this article