scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Mortality in Mental Disorders and Global Disease Burden Implications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

01 Apr 2015-JAMA Psychiatry (American Medical Association)-Vol. 72, Iss: 4, pp 334-341
TL;DR: Estimates suggest that mental disorders rank among the most substantial causes of death worldwide, and efforts to quantify and address the global burden of illness need to better consider the role of mental disorders in preventable mortality.
Abstract: Importance Despite the potential importance of understanding excess mortality among people with mental disorders, no comprehensive meta-analyses have been conducted quantifying mortality across mental disorders. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality among people with mental disorders and examine differences in mortality risks by type of death, diagnosis, and study characteristics. Data sources We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Web of Science from inception through May 7, 2014, including references of eligible articles. Our search strategy included terms for mental disorders (eg, mental disorders, serious mental illness, and severe mental illness), specific diagnoses (eg, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder), and mortality. We also used Google Scholar to identify articles that cited eligible articles. Study selection English-language cohort studies that reported a mortality estimate of mental disorders compared with a general population or controls from the same study setting without mental illness were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and articles. Of 2481 studies identified, 203 articles met the eligibility criteria and represented 29 countries in 6 continents. Data extraction and synthesis One reviewer conducted a full abstraction of all data, and 2 reviewers verified accuracy. Main outcomes and measures Mortality estimates (eg, standardized mortality ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios, odds ratios, and years of potential life lost) comparing people with mental disorders and the general population or people without mental disorders. We used random-effects meta-analysis models to pool mortality ratios for all, natural, and unnatural causes of death. We also examined years of potential life lost and estimated the population attributable risk of mortality due to mental disorders. Results For all-cause mortality, the pooled relative risk of mortality among those with mental disorders (from 148 studies) was 2.22 (95% CI, 2.12-2.33). Of these, 135 studies revealed that mortality was significantly higher among people with mental disorders than among the comparison population. A total of 67.3% of deaths among people with mental disorders were due to natural causes, 17.5% to unnatural causes, and the remainder to other or unknown causes. The median years of potential life lost was 10 years (n = 24 studies). We estimate that 14.3% of deaths worldwide, or approximately 8 million deaths each year, are attributable to mental disorders. Conclusions and relevance These estimates suggest that mental disorders rank among the most substantial causes of death worldwide. Efforts to quantify and address the global burden of illness need to better consider the role of mental disorders in preventable mortality.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
15 Sep 2016
TL;DR: An overview of the current evidence of major depressive disorder, including its epidemiology, aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment, is provided.
Abstract: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating disease that is characterized by depressed mood, diminished interests, impaired cognitive function and vegetative symptoms, such as disturbed sleep or appetite. MDD occurs about twice as often in women than it does in men and affects one in six adults in their lifetime. The aetiology of MDD is multifactorial and its heritability is estimated to be approximately 35%. In addition, environmental factors, such as sexual, physical or emotional abuse during childhood, are strongly associated with the risk of developing MDD. No established mechanism can explain all aspects of the disease. However, MDD is associated with alterations in regional brain volumes, particularly the hippocampus, and with functional changes in brain circuits, such as the cognitive control network and the affective-salience network. Furthermore, disturbances in the main neurobiological stress-responsive systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the immune system, occur in MDD. Management primarily comprises psychotherapy and pharmacological treatment. For treatment-resistant patients who have not responded to several augmentation or combination treatment attempts, electroconvulsive therapy is the treatment with the best empirical evidence. In this Primer, we provide an overview of the current evidence of MDD, including its epidemiology, aetiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment.

1,728 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is argued that the global burden of mental illness is underestimated and the reasons for under-estimation are examined to identify five main causes: overlap between psychiatric and neurological disorders; the grouping of suicide and self-harm as a separate category; conflation of all chronic pain syndromes with musculoskeletal disorders; exclusion of personality disorders from disease burden calculations; and inadequate consideration of the contribution of severe mental illness to mortality from associated causes.

1,444 citations


Cites background from "Mortality in Mental Disorders and G..."

  • ...Indeed, a recent systematic review estimated that 14·3% of deaths worldwide, or approximately eight million deaths each year, are attributable to mental disorders.(32) However, mental...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Treatment with new agents results in an improvement in mood ratings within hours of dosing patients who are resistant to typical antidepressants, and these new agents have also been shown to reverse the synaptic deficits caused by stress.
Abstract: Depression is a common, devastating illness. Current pharmacotherapies help many patients, but high rates of a partial response or no response, and the delayed onset of the effects of antidepressant therapies, leave many patients inadequately treated. However, new insights into the neurobiology of stress and human mood disorders have shed light on mechanisms underlying the vulnerability of individuals to depression and have pointed to novel antidepressants. Environmental events and other risk factors contribute to depression through converging molecular and cellular mechanisms that disrupt neuronal function and morphology, resulting in dysfunction of the circuitry that is essential for mood regulation and cognitive function. Although current antidepressants, such as serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, produce subtle changes that take effect in weeks or months, it has recently been shown that treatment with new agents results in an improvement in mood ratings within hours of dosing patients who are resistant to typical antidepressants. Within a similar time scale, these new agents have also been shown to reverse the synaptic deficits caused by stress.

999 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

45,105 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition and suggests a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.

33,234 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
19 Apr 2000-JAMA
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

17,663 citations

Book
18 Aug 2000
TL;DR: This paper presents a meta-analysis procedure called “Meta-Analysis Interpretation for Meta-Analysis Selecting, Computing and Coding the Effect Size Statistic and its applications to Data Management Analysis Issues and Strategies.
Abstract: Introduction Problem Specification and Study Retrieval Selecting, Computing and Coding the Effect Size Statistic Developing a Coding Scheme and Coding Study Reports Data Management Analysis Issues and Strategies Computational Techniques for Meta-Analysis Data Interpreting and Using Meta-Analysis Results

6,930 citations

Related Papers (5)
Trending Questions (1)
What person has the most mental disorders in the world?

AND RELEVANCE These estimates suggest that mental disorders rank among the most substantial causes of death worldwide.