ReviewOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2026
Depression prevalence estimates in Spain (1995-2021): a systematic review.
Review in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to systematically review and synthesise heterogeneous depression prevalence estimates in the Spanish general population and analyse their variation according to methodological factors over recent decades. Content: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, ÍnDICEs CSIC, and PSICODOC. Inclusion criteria were: reporting incidence, prevalence, or mean depression scores; population ≥14 years; n ≥1,000; use of validated assessment methods. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Findings were synthesised qualitatively. 13 studies were included; most were international (n=7), cross-sectional (n=11), and used diagnostic interviews (n=8). Comparable studies (n=11) showed an increase in prevalence estimates in recent years, ranging from approximately 4-22 %, depending on assessment method and study period. Several studies (n=7) reported significant associations with female gender and unfavourable sociodemographic conditions. Most studies (n=11) were high quality. Summary: Evidence derived from heterogeneous estimates suggests an increase in reported depression prevalence among comparable studies from 1995 to 2021. Despite methodological variation, women were affected twice as often as men, and unfavourable sociodemographic conditions were linked to higher risk. Early-pandemic increases likely reflect reactive psychological distress. This is the first systematic review on this topic. Outlook: Future research should use probability sampling and harmonised screening and diagnostic methods to improve representativeness and comparability.
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.