{"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":" ","pages":"768-790"},"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.
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.