4.7 Review

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of anxiety and depression in patients with irritable bowel syndrome

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 132-143

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15325

关键词

-

资金

  1. Babol University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common and potential disabling functional gastrointestinal disorder. Studies have revealed a possible association between IBS and psychological problems, such as anxiety and depression. Existing systematic reviews have addressed only the levels of anxiety or depression in patients with IBS. Aim To investigate systematically the prevalence of anxiety or depression in IBS patients Methods A literature search was conducted using the related keywords from the bibliographic databases of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and POPLINE published until 1 January 2019 with no language restriction. Studies reporting the prevalence of anxiety/depressive symptoms/disorders in adult (>= 15 years) IBS patients were evaluated. The pooled prevalence, odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated using stata software. Results A total of 14 926 articles were initially screened, and finally 73 papers were included. The prevalence rates of anxiety symptoms and disorders in IBS patients were 39.1% (95% CI: 32.4-45.8) and 23% (95% CI: 17.2-28.8) respectively. The ORs for anxiety symptoms and disorders in IBS patients compared with healthy subjects were 3.11 (95% CI: 2.43-3.98) and 2.52 (95% CI: 1.99-3.20) respectively. The prevalence estimates of depressive symptoms and disorders in IBS patients were 28.8% (95% CI: 23.6-34) and 23.3% (95% CI: 17.2-29.4) respectively. The ORs for depressive symptoms and disorders in IBS patients compared to healthy subjects were 3.04 (95% CI: 2.37-3.91) and 2.72 (95% CI: 2.45-3.02) respectively. Conclusion Patients with IBS have a three-fold increased odds of either anxiety or depression, compared to healthy subjects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据