ArticleDepression and anxiety2018
Familial aggregation of major depressive disorder in an African-American community.
Article in Depression and anxiety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAfrican Americans (AAs) with major depressive disorder (MDD) experience more impairment and poorer treatment outcomes relative to Whites, yet are underrepresented in family studies of MDD. This is the first study to investigate the familial aggregation of major depression among AAs.
methodsParticipants' reports of depression from clinical and family history (FH) interviews were used to examine depression rates among 435 first-degree relatives and half-siblings of 63 depressed cases and 222 relatives of 33 nondepressed controls. Binary logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios (ORs) for FH of MDD and level of trauma exposure (high and low) in cases versus controls. Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess MDD in relatives of cases versus relatives of controls.
resultsCases and controls did not differ in either FH of MDD (OR = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5-2.9), or prevalence of MDD in relatives (relative risk [RR] = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.8-2.5). However, exposure to high trauma was associated with increased risk of MDD (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 1.22-7.17) and the combined effect of FH and trauma was greater than expected under an additive model. Similarly, the RR for MDD among relatives of cases with high-trauma levels was 2.2 (1.24-4.2), compared to relatives of controls with low trauma.
conclusionThe effect of FH of MDD appears to be exacerbated among individuals exposed to high trauma. Replication and further research on the chronology and subtypes of trauma and MDD, and their interactions, remain essential in AA populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.