| Title |
Association between dietary glycemic index and glycemic load with depression: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-018-1710-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mehran Rahimlou, Nava Morshedzadeh, Soheila Karimi, Sima Jafarirad |
| Abstract |
A combination of genetic and environmental factors is involved in depression etiology. During the last years, the prevalence of depression has increased in both developed and developing countries. Several studies indicated an association between dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) with risk of depression. This systematic review was undertaken to summarize the effect of these diet indicators in depression pathogenesis. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases from 1966 to March 2017. Finally, six studies (three prospective cohort studies and three cross-sectional) were ultimately selected for inclusion in the systematic review. 75298 adults and elderly entered the reviewed studies. All of the included studies had high methodological quality. The present study indicated that the intake of foods with higher GI is associated with disease risk. However, the relationship was found to be inverse for GL, though the association was rather weak. Overall, the findings indicated that a diet with lower dietary glycemic index may be effective to reduce the risk or risk of depression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#12,783,598
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,399
of 2,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,212
of 327,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#36
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.