↓ Skip to main content

The association of depression and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The association of depression and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1101-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myrela O. Machado, Nicola Veronese, Marcos Sanches, Brendon Stubbs, Ai Koyanagi, Trevor Thompson, Ioanna Tzoulaki, Marco Solmi, Davy Vancampfort, Felipe B. Schuch, Michael Maes, Giovanni A. Fava, John P. A. Ioannidis, André F. Carvalho

Abstract

Depression is a prevalent and disabling mental disorder that frequently co-occurs with a wide range of chronic conditions. Evidence has suggested that depression could be associated with excess all-cause mortality across different settings and populations, although the causality of these associations remains unclear. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase electronic databases were searched through January 20, 2018. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated associations of depression and all-cause and cause-specific mortality were selected for the review. The evidence was graded as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak based on quantitative criteria that included an assessment of heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, small-study effects, and excess significance bias. A total of 26 references providing 2 systematic reviews and data for 17 meta-analytic estimates met inclusion criteria (19 of them on all-cause mortality); data from 246 unique studies (N = 3,825,380) were synthesized. All 17 associations had P < 0.05 per random effects summary effects, but none of them met criteria for convincing evidence. Associations of depression and all-cause mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction, in individuals with heart failure, in cancer patients as well as in samples from mixed settings met criteria for highly suggestive evidence. However, none of the associations remained supported by highly suggestive evidence in sensitivity analyses that considered studies employing structured diagnostic interviews. In addition, associations of depression and all-cause mortality in cancer and post-acute myocardial infarction samples were supported only by suggestive evidence when studies that tried to adjust for potential confounders were considered. Even though associations between depression and mortality have nominally significant results in all assessed settings and populations, the evidence becomes weaker when focusing on studies that used structured interviews and those that tried to adjust for potential confounders. A causal effect of depression on all-cause and cause-specific mortality remains unproven, and thus interventions targeting depression are not expected to result in lower mortality rates at least based on current evidence from observational studies.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 226 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 15%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 61 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 20%
Psychology 29 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Neuroscience 13 6%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 76 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,928,753
of 24,309,087 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,073
of 3,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,606
of 332,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#46
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,309,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 332,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.