Bipolar disorders · 2017
Systematic assessment of environmental risk factors for bipolar disorder: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bortolato Beatrice, Köhler Cristiano A, Evangelou Evangelos, León-Caballero Jordi, Solmi Marco, Stubbs Brendon, Belbasis Lazaros, Pacchiarotti Isabella, Kessing Lars V, Berk Michael, Vieta Eduard, Carvalho André F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The pathophysiology of bipolar disorder is likely to involve both genetic and environmental risk factors. In our study, we aimed to perform a systematic search of environmental risk factors for BD. In addition, we assessed possible hints of bias in this literature, and identified risk factors supported by high epidemiological credibility.
METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases up to 7 October 2016 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed associations between putative environmental risk factors and BD. For each meta-analysis, we estimated its summary effect size by means of both random- and fixed-effects models, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the 95% prediction interval, and heterogeneity. Evidence of small-study effects and excess of significance bias was also assessed.
RESULTS: Sixteen publications met the inclusion criteria (seven meta-analyses and nine qualitative systematic reviews). Fifty-one unique environmental risk factors for BD were evaluated. Six meta-analyses investigated associations with a risk factor for BD. Only irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) emerged as a risk factor for BD supported by convincing evidence (k=6; odds ratio [OR]=2.48; 95% CI=2.35-2.61; P<.001), and childhood adversity was supported by highly suggestive evidence. Asthma and obesity were risk factors for BD supported by suggestive evidence, and seropositivity to Toxoplasma gondii and a history of head injury were supported by weak evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding that several environmental risk factors for BD were identified, few meta-analyses of observational studies were available. Therefore, further well-designed and adequately powered studies are necessary to map the environmental risk factors for BD.
METHODS: We searched the Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases up to 7 October 2016 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies that assessed associations between putative environmental risk factors and BD. For each meta-analysis, we estimated its summary effect size by means of both random- and fixed-effects models, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the 95% prediction interval, and heterogeneity. Evidence of small-study effects and excess of significance bias was also assessed.
RESULTS: Sixteen publications met the inclusion criteria (seven meta-analyses and nine qualitative systematic reviews). Fifty-one unique environmental risk factors for BD were evaluated. Six meta-analyses investigated associations with a risk factor for BD. Only irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) emerged as a risk factor for BD supported by convincing evidence (k=6; odds ratio [OR]=2.48; 95% CI=2.35-2.61; P<.001), and childhood adversity was supported by highly suggestive evidence. Asthma and obesity were risk factors for BD supported by suggestive evidence, and seropositivity to Toxoplasma gondii and a history of head injury were supported by weak evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding that several environmental risk factors for BD were identified, few meta-analyses of observational studies were available. Therefore, further well-designed and adequately powered studies are necessary to map the environmental risk factors for BD.