Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25034859›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2014

Perinatal depression: an update and overview.

Kaela Stuart-Parrigon, Scott Stuart

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. The Effect of Maternal Depression on Infant Attachment: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaela Stuart-ParrigonPsychology Department, Kent State University, 600 Hilltop Dr., Kent, OH, 44240, USA, kstuart2@kent.edu.
Scott Stuart
Kent State University · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Effective Treatments for Underserved Perinatal WomenK24MH072757 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI STUART, SCOTT P · 2006 to 2010
$685k
NIMH NIH HHS K24 MH072757
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 3 years there have been notable developments in the screening and treatment of perinatal depression. Most importantly, the DSM-V has made only minor changes in the diagnostic criteria for perinatal depression as compared to the DSM-IV; "perinatal," as opposed to "postpartum," is a specifier for depression with a requirement that the depression onset occurs during pregnancy or the first 4 weeks postpartum. Advances in the treatment of perinatal depression have been made over the last 3 years, including both prevention and acute interventions. Additional support has emerged confirming the primary risk factors for perinatal depression: a personal or family history, low SES and poor interpersonal support. There is general agreement that universal screening be conducted for all perinatal women, by both the woman's obstetrician and the baby's pediatrician.

Indexed as

Depression, PostpartumAntidepressive AgentsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMother-Child RelationsPeripartum PeriodPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyPsychotherapyRisk FactorsAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID25034859
PMCPMC4920261
OpenAlexW1990987477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.