13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Co‐morbidity between mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

      review-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

          There is consistent evidence that mood disorders often co‐occur with anxiety disorders, however, the strength of the association of these two broad groups of disorders has been challenging to summarize across different studies. The aim was to conduct a meta‐analysis of publications reporting on the pairwise comorbidity between mood and anxiety disorders after sorting into comparable study types. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the grey literature for publications between 1980 and 2017 regardless of geographical locations and languages. We meta‐analyzed estimates from original articles after sorting by: (a) broad or narrow diagnostic criteria, (b) study time‐frame, and (c) estimates with or without covariate adjustments. Over 43 000 unique studies were identified through electronic searches, of which 391 were selected for full‐text review. Finally, 171 studies were eligible for inclusion, including 53 articles from additional snowball searching. In general, regardless of variations in diagnosis type, study time‐frame, temporal order, or use of adjustments, there was substantial comorbidity between mood and anxiety disorders. Based on the entire 90 separate meta‐analyses, the median OR was 6.1 (range 1.5–18.7). Of these estimates, all 90 were above 1, and 87 were significantly greater than 1 (i.e., the 95% confidence intervals did not include 1). Fourteen of the 90 pooled estimates had ORs that were greater than 10. This systematic review found robust and consistent evidence of comorbidity between broadly defined mood and anxiety disorders. Clinicians should be vigilant for the prompt identification and treatment of this common type of comorbidity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

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

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sukanta_saha@qcmhr.uq.edu.au
                Journal
                Depress Anxiety
                Depress Anxiety
                10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6394
                DA
                Depression and Anxiety
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1091-4269
                1520-6394
                22 November 2020
                March 2021
                : 38
                : 3 , DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY TOGETHER AND APART ( doiID: 10.1002/da.v38.3 )
                : 286-306
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Queensland Brain Institute University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
                [ 2 ] Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research The Park Centre for Mental Health Wacol Australia
                [ 3 ] Business School, Faculty of Business, Economics and Law University of Queensland St Lucia Australia
                [ 4 ] National Centre for Register‐based Research Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Sukanta Saha, Level 3, Dawson House, Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, The Park Centre for Mental Health, Wacol QLD 4076, Australia.

                Email: sukanta_saha@ 123456qcmhr.uq.edu.au

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8676-8800
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1595-6307
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-6068
                Article
                DA23113
                10.1002/da.23113
                7984258
                33225514
                b1c5bbc4-858f-44a5-9e33-b412e7b8061b
                © 2020 The Authors. Depression and Anxiety Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 September 2020
                : 22 July 2020
                : 18 October 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 5, Pages: 21, Words: 9866
                Funding
                Funded by: Professor John McGrath
                Award ID: APP1056929
                Award ID: Danish National Research Foundation
                Award ID: Niels Bohr Professorship
                Categories
                Review
                Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                March 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.0 mode:remove_FC converted:22.03.2021

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                agoraphobia,anxiety disorders,bipolar disorder,depression,epidemiology,mood disorder

                Comments

                Comment on this article