Evidence mapPaperPMID 38113292Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024

Global prevalence of perinatal depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review and meta-analytic synthesis.

Alessia Caffieri, Irene Gómez-Gómez, Carlos Barquero-Jimenez, Paula De-Juan-Iglesias, Giorgia Margherita, Emma Motrico

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessia CaffieriDepartment of Humanistic Studies, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8142-6892
Irene Gómez-GómezDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8014-6955
Carlos Barquero-JimenezDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.
Paula De-Juan-IglesiasDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.
Giorgia MargheritaDepartment of Humanistic Studies, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Emma MotricoDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0720-567X
Universidad Loyola Andalucía · ESUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon Europe Grant agreement ID: 101042139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed by several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses which provided contrasting and different results. We aimed to summarize the evidence relating to the global prevalence of anxiety and depression among pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND

methodsAn umbrella review of SRs and meta-analyses was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases up to April 2023. SRs and meta-analyses reporting the prevalence of perinatal anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic were selected for eligibility. Primary studies extracted from eligible meta-analyses were included in the quantitative synthesis. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173125).

resultsA total of 25 SRs (198 primary studies) and 12 meta-analyses (129 primary studies) were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Studies involved data from five continents and 45 countries. The pooled prevalence of antenatal and postpartum depression was 29% (n = 55; 95% CI: 25%-33%) and 26% (n = 54; 95% CI: 23%-30%), respectively. In the case of anxiety, the pooled antenatal and postnatal prevalence was 31% (n = 44; 95% CI: 26%-37%; n = 16; 95% CI: 24%-39%). Differences emerged between continents, with Africa having the highest prevalence of perinatal depression and Oceania and Europe having the highest prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety. The prevalence also varied depending on the assessment tools, especially for antenatal anxiety. A medium-high quality of the studies was observed. One SR assessed strength-of-evidence, reporting very low strength.

conclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, depression and anxiety were common, affecting almost one in three perinatal women globally. A high heterogeneity and a risk of publication bias were found, partially due to the variety of assessment tools and cut-offs. The results may not be generalized to minorities. Studies on the prevalence of clinical diagnoses are needed. Based on our results it is not possible to firmly affirm that the COVID-19 pandemic was the main factor that directly increased perinatal depression and anxiety during the past few years. Future studies should study other factors' impact.

Indexed as

COVID-19DepressionAnxietyFemaleHumansPandemicsPregnancyPrevalenceanxietyCOVID-19 pandemicdepressionpostpartumpregnancyprevalenceumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID38113292
PMCPMC10823409
OpenAlexW4390016282

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.