4.5 Article

The bidirectional relationship between anxiety, depression, and lower urinary track symptoms: A nationwide population-based cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 77-82

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.07.008

关键词

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); Anxiety; Depression; National Health Insurance Research Database (NHRD); Cohort study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Evidence has shown a positive correlation between lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and anxiety/depression, but the direction and strength of the association are still unclear. We aimed to test the bidirectional association between LUTS and anxiety/depression using a longitudinal population database. Methods: Using claims data obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, 17,489 patients with LUTS and 34,978 non-LUTS matched controls (cohort 1); and 45,707 patients with anxiety, 19,306 patients with depression, 91,414 non-anxiety, and 38,720 non-depression matched controls (cohort 2) were enrolled between 1999 and 2008. All subjects were followed at least three years or until the date of death or the end of 2011 to estimate the risk of developing anxiety/depression (cohort 1) or LUTS (cohort 2). Results: After controlling for age, gender, and medical comorbidities, LUTS patients were 2.12 (95%CI: 1.95-2.30) and 2.03 (95%CI: 1.76-2.33) times more likely to develop anxiety and depression, respectively. After controlling for age, gender, and medical comorbidities, patients with anxiety and depression were 2.01 (95%CI: 1.88-2.14) and 2.37 (95%CI: 2.13-2.65) times more likely to develop LUTS, respectively. Limitations: The incidence of anxiety, depression, and LUTS may be under-estimated because only healthcare seeking subjects were enrolled in our study. Conclusions: Our findings suggested a bidirectional relationship between administrated anxiety/depression and LUTS in the cohorts. Further studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanisms.

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

4.5
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