4.2 Article

Age and risk for depression among the elderly: a meta-analysis of the published literature

期刊

CNS SPECTRUMS
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 142-154

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1092852912000533

关键词

Age; depression; elderly; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Foundation of Natural Science of China [81170752]
  2. government of Sichuan province of china [2010FZ0061]
  3. health department in the government of Sichuan province
  4. government of MianYang City [09s001]
  5. Third Hospital of Mianyang

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between age and risk for depression among the old and the oldest old. Method. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database were used to identify potential studies. The studies were divided into cross-sectional and longitudinal subsets. For each study, the numbers of the total participants, cases (for cross-sectional study), or incident cases (for longitudinal study) of depression in each age group were extracted and entered into Review Manager 4.2 software. Qualitative meta-analyses of cross-sectional studies and of longitudinal studies were performed. For prevalence and incidence rates of depression, odds risk (OR) and relative risk (RR) were calculated, respectively. Results. The qualitative meta-analyses showed that, compared with younger participants (above vs. below 65 years, above vs. below 70 years, above vs. below 75 years, and above vs. below 80 years), older age groups had a significantly higher risk for depression. (All of the ORs and RRs were significant.) Compared with participants aged 55-89, those aged above 90 years had no higher risk for depression. (Neither the OR nor the RR was significant.) Conclusions. Despite the methodological limitations of this meta-analysis, older age appears to be an important risk factor for depression in the general elderly population (aged below 80 years), but not in the oldest population (aged above 85 years).

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

4.2
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