Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129719›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mental health2025

Adverse Events of Mood Monitoring and Ambulatory Assessment in Depression and Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Laurence Astill Wright, Jonathan Monk-Cunliffe, Boliang Guo, Richard Morriss

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Laurence Astill WrightInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom, 44 0115 823 1294.ORCID 0000-0001-8324-1229
Jonathan Monk-CunliffeCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4696-6578
Boliang GuoInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom, 44 0115 823 1294.ORCID 0000-0002-1844-705X
Richard MorrissInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom, 44 0115 823 1294.ORCID 0000-0003-2910-4121

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mood monitoring and ambulatory assessment offer improvements in measuring mood and behavior for mental health research and clinical practice. However, concerns about adverse effects and usability may hinder their implementation. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prevalence of adverse events, barriers and facilitators to use, and suggestions for improvement in quantitative mood monitoring studies involving people with depression and bipolar disorder. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 77 quantitative studies that used mood monitoring or ambulatory assessment in depression and bipolar disorder, assessing adverse events, barriers and facilitators to use, and suggestions for improvement. Adverse events data were pooled to identify prevalence. Results: Of the 77 studies, 15 (19%) reported adverse events, and 20 (26%) reported usability issues. Pooled prevalence of adverse events was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06; P<.001). Specific adverse effects included increased burden or stress (0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07; P<.001), mood worsening (0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.02; P=.001), self-harm (0.05, 95% CI-0.02 to 0.10; P=.007), and hospitalization (0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.09; P=.26). The top facilitators were perceived helpfulness and ease of use, the top barriers included technical challenges and the time-consuming nature of the interventions, and the top suggested improvement was personalization. Conclusions: A small number of mood monitoring or ambulatory assessment users experienced negative psychological effects; however, we were unable to infer causality. Due to the severe underreporting of adverse events as well as heterogeneity and publication bias in the included studies, there was limited certainty in the prevalence, duration, and severity of these adverse events. More systematic monitoring of adverse events is needed to optimize safety and usability. Many mood monitoring protocols may require additional development to decrease adverse events and improve acceptability.

Indexed as

AffectBipolar DisorderDepressionDepressive DisorderMonitoring, AmbulatoryHumansadverse effectsadverse eventsambulatory assessmentbipolar disorderdepressiondigital mental healthecological momentary assessmentEMAmood monitoringmood trackingPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMA

Identifiers

PMID41129719
PMCPMC12548826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.