Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33200744›Full record

ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2020

Psychomorbidity, Resilience, and Exacerbating and Protective Factors During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

Donya Gilan, Nikolaus Röthke, Manpreet Blessin, Angela Kunzler, Jutta Stoffers-Winterling, Markus Müssig, Kenneth S L Yuen, Oliver Tüscher, Johannes Thrul, Frauke Kreuter and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Utilization of mental health services during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic - a systematic review and meta-analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Donya GilanLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany; Department of mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; University of Mannheim & University of Maryland; Institute of media and communication sciences, University of Erfurt, Germany; Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Switzerland; Human Neuroimaging Center, Focus Program Translational Neurosciences (FTN) of the Johannes; Gutenberg University Mainz, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
Nikolaus Röthke
Manpreet Blessin
Angela Kunzler
Jutta Stoffers-Winterling
Markus Müssig
Kenneth S L Yuen
Oliver Tüscher
Johannes Thrul
Frauke Kreuter
Philipp Sprengholz
Cornelia Betsch
Rolf Dieter Stieglitz
Klaus Lieb
University of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused mental stress in a number of ways: overstrain of the health care system, lockdown of the economy, restricted opportunities for interpersonal contact and excursions outside the home and workplace, and quarantine measures where necessary. In this article, we provide an overview of psychological distress in the current pandemic, identifying protective factors and risk factors.

methodsThe PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications (1 January 2019 - 16 April 2020). This study was registered in OSF Registries (osf.io/34j8g). Data on mental stress and resilience in Germany were obtained from three surveys carried out on more than 1000 participants each in the framework of the COSMO study (24 March, 31 March, and 21 April 2020).

results18 studies from China and India, with a total of 79 664 participants, revealed increased stress in the general population, with manifestations of depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and sleep disturbances. Stress was more marked among persons working in the health care sector. Risk factors for stress included patient contact, female sex, impaired health status, worry about family members and significant others, and poor sleep quality. Protective factors included being informed about the increasing number of persons who have recovered from COVID, social support, and a lower perceived infectious risk. The COSMO study, though based on an insufficiently representative population sample because of a low questionnaire return rate (<20%), revealed increased rates of despondency, loneliness, and hopelessness in the German population as compared to norm data, with no change in estimated resilience.

conclusionStress factors associated with the current pandemic probably increase stress by causing anxiety and depression. Once the protective factors and risk factors have been identified, these can be used to develop psychosocial interventions. The informativeness of the results reported here is limited by the wide variety of instruments used to acquire data and by the insufficiently representative nature of the population samples.

Indexed as

PandemicsResilience, PsychologicalCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19GermanyHumansMental DisordersPneumonia, ViralProtective FactorsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33200744
PMCPMC7817784
OpenAlexW3092572460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.