Comparing the Symptomatology of Post-stroke Depression with Depression in the General Population: A Systematic Review.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-05 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09611-5
J J Blake, F Gracey, S Whitmore, N M Broomfield
{"title":"Comparing the Symptomatology of Post-stroke Depression with Depression in the General Population: A Systematic Review.","authors":"J J Blake, F Gracey, S Whitmore, N M Broomfield","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09611-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research into the phenomenological differences of post-stroke depression (PSD) has typically focused on comparisons of symptom profiles between stroke and non-stroke population controls. This systematic review aimed to synthesize these findings with results from other methodological approaches that contribute to an understanding of phenomenological differences. Articles were identified via a systematic search of seven databases and additional manual searching. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted because of the high methodological heterogeneity. Twelve articles comparing the symptomatology of depression between stroke and non-stroke controls were included. Three distinct methodological approaches, relevant to the aim, were identified: comparisons of profiles among groups with similar overall depression severity, comparisons of the strengths of correlations between a symptom and depression, and comparisons of latent symptom severity. The symptomatology of depression was generally similar between the groups, including somatic symptoms, despite the hypothesized interference of comorbid physical stroke effects. Despite high heterogeneity, there was a tentative indication that post-stroke depression manifests with comparatively less severe/prevalent anhedonia. Possible mechanisms for the observed similarities and differences are explored, including suggestions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09611-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research into the phenomenological differences of post-stroke depression (PSD) has typically focused on comparisons of symptom profiles between stroke and non-stroke population controls. This systematic review aimed to synthesize these findings with results from other methodological approaches that contribute to an understanding of phenomenological differences. Articles were identified via a systematic search of seven databases and additional manual searching. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted because of the high methodological heterogeneity. Twelve articles comparing the symptomatology of depression between stroke and non-stroke controls were included. Three distinct methodological approaches, relevant to the aim, were identified: comparisons of profiles among groups with similar overall depression severity, comparisons of the strengths of correlations between a symptom and depression, and comparisons of latent symptom severity. The symptomatology of depression was generally similar between the groups, including somatic symptoms, despite the hypothesized interference of comorbid physical stroke effects. Despite high heterogeneity, there was a tentative indication that post-stroke depression manifests with comparatively less severe/prevalent anhedonia. Possible mechanisms for the observed similarities and differences are explored, including suggestions for future research.

Abstract Image

比较卒中后抑郁症与普通人群抑郁症的症状:系统回顾
以往对卒中后抑郁(PSD)现象学差异的研究通常集中在卒中与非卒中人群对照组症状特征的比较上。本系统综述旨在将这些研究结果与有助于了解现象学差异的其他方法学方法的结果进行综合。通过对七个数据库的系统检索和额外的人工检索确定了相关文章。由于方法异质性较高,因此采用了叙事综合法。纳入了 12 篇比较中风和非中风对照组抑郁症状的文章。确定了与研究目的相关的三种不同方法:比较总体抑郁严重程度相似的群体的概况、比较症状与抑郁之间的相关性强度以及比较潜在症状的严重程度。尽管假设存在合并躯体中风效应的干扰,但各组之间的抑郁症状(包括躯体症状)基本相似。尽管异质性很高,但有初步迹象表明,卒中后抑郁表现为相对较轻/较普遍的失神。本文探讨了观察到的异同的可能机制,包括对未来研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信