The impact of methodology and confounding variables on the association between major depression and coronary heart disease: Review and recommendations

Nicolas J C Stapelberg, David L. Neumann, David H K Shum, Harry McConnell, Ian Hamilton-Craig

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: A reciprocal association exists between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). A quantitative evaluation of this association is necessary to identify potential areas of clinical intervention. However, the association is unclear because of methodological differences and confounders across studies. This review examines the impact of methodology and confounding variables on the magnitude of the relationship between MDD and CHD. Methods: The search terms "major depression AND coronary heart disease" were entered into an electronic multiple database search engine. Abstracts were screened for relevance and individually selected articles were collated. Results: Nine methodological issues and three confounders are identified, which have contributed to uncertainty in the quantitative relationship between MDD and CHD. More quantitative, prospective longitudinal studies are needed, which use standard definitions for MDD and CHD and define clear outcomes. Studies should clearly establish the temporal relationship between the onset of depressed mood and one or more adverse cardiac events, should use quantitative measures of depression which are treated as continuous data, and have frequent measures of mental state over time, correlated with measures of cardiac health. Study design should avoid confounding by considering demographic factors, cardiac risk factors and management of MDD in CHD patients. Conclusions: This review raises the need for a standardised methodology in future research, taking into account the biases and confounders listed. Adopting a consensus approach to methodology will facilitate the quantitative exploration of the causal network linking MDD and CHD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)342-352
Number of pages11
JournalCurrent Psychiatry Reviews
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Nov 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Confounding Factors (Epidemiology)
Major Depressive Disorder
Coronary Disease
Depression
Search Engine
Risk Management
Uncertainty
Longitudinal Studies
Consensus
Demography
Databases
Prospective Studies
Health

Cite this

@article{a59eac92b0e244018c2d8067b55541ec,
title = "The impact of methodology and confounding variables on the association between major depression and coronary heart disease: Review and recommendations",
abstract = "Background: A reciprocal association exists between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). A quantitative evaluation of this association is necessary to identify potential areas of clinical intervention. However, the association is unclear because of methodological differences and confounders across studies. This review examines the impact of methodology and confounding variables on the magnitude of the relationship between MDD and CHD. Methods: The search terms {"}major depression AND coronary heart disease{"} were entered into an electronic multiple database search engine. Abstracts were screened for relevance and individually selected articles were collated. Results: Nine methodological issues and three confounders are identified, which have contributed to uncertainty in the quantitative relationship between MDD and CHD. More quantitative, prospective longitudinal studies are needed, which use standard definitions for MDD and CHD and define clear outcomes. Studies should clearly establish the temporal relationship between the onset of depressed mood and one or more adverse cardiac events, should use quantitative measures of depression which are treated as continuous data, and have frequent measures of mental state over time, correlated with measures of cardiac health. Study design should avoid confounding by considering demographic factors, cardiac risk factors and management of MDD in CHD patients. Conclusions: This review raises the need for a standardised methodology in future research, taking into account the biases and confounders listed. Adopting a consensus approach to methodology will facilitate the quantitative exploration of the causal network linking MDD and CHD.",
author = "Stapelberg, {Nicolas J C} and Neumann, {David L.} and Shum, {David H K} and Harry McConnell and Ian Hamilton-Craig",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "27",
doi = "10.2174/15734005113096660012",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "342--352",
journal = "Current Psychiatry Reviews",
issn = "1573-4005",
publisher = "Bentham Science Publishers",
number = "4",

}

The impact of methodology and confounding variables on the association between major depression and coronary heart disease : Review and recommendations. / Stapelberg, Nicolas J C; Neumann, David L.; Shum, David H K; McConnell, Harry; Hamilton-Craig, Ian.

In: Current Psychiatry Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 4, 27.11.2013, p. 342-352.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of methodology and confounding variables on the association between major depression and coronary heart disease

T2 - Review and recommendations

AU - Stapelberg, Nicolas J C

AU - Neumann, David L.

AU - Shum, David H K

AU - McConnell, Harry

AU - Hamilton-Craig, Ian

PY - 2013/11/27

Y1 - 2013/11/27

N2 - Background: A reciprocal association exists between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). A quantitative evaluation of this association is necessary to identify potential areas of clinical intervention. However, the association is unclear because of methodological differences and confounders across studies. This review examines the impact of methodology and confounding variables on the magnitude of the relationship between MDD and CHD. Methods: The search terms "major depression AND coronary heart disease" were entered into an electronic multiple database search engine. Abstracts were screened for relevance and individually selected articles were collated. Results: Nine methodological issues and three confounders are identified, which have contributed to uncertainty in the quantitative relationship between MDD and CHD. More quantitative, prospective longitudinal studies are needed, which use standard definitions for MDD and CHD and define clear outcomes. Studies should clearly establish the temporal relationship between the onset of depressed mood and one or more adverse cardiac events, should use quantitative measures of depression which are treated as continuous data, and have frequent measures of mental state over time, correlated with measures of cardiac health. Study design should avoid confounding by considering demographic factors, cardiac risk factors and management of MDD in CHD patients. Conclusions: This review raises the need for a standardised methodology in future research, taking into account the biases and confounders listed. Adopting a consensus approach to methodology will facilitate the quantitative exploration of the causal network linking MDD and CHD.

AB - Background: A reciprocal association exists between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). A quantitative evaluation of this association is necessary to identify potential areas of clinical intervention. However, the association is unclear because of methodological differences and confounders across studies. This review examines the impact of methodology and confounding variables on the magnitude of the relationship between MDD and CHD. Methods: The search terms "major depression AND coronary heart disease" were entered into an electronic multiple database search engine. Abstracts were screened for relevance and individually selected articles were collated. Results: Nine methodological issues and three confounders are identified, which have contributed to uncertainty in the quantitative relationship between MDD and CHD. More quantitative, prospective longitudinal studies are needed, which use standard definitions for MDD and CHD and define clear outcomes. Studies should clearly establish the temporal relationship between the onset of depressed mood and one or more adverse cardiac events, should use quantitative measures of depression which are treated as continuous data, and have frequent measures of mental state over time, correlated with measures of cardiac health. Study design should avoid confounding by considering demographic factors, cardiac risk factors and management of MDD in CHD patients. Conclusions: This review raises the need for a standardised methodology in future research, taking into account the biases and confounders listed. Adopting a consensus approach to methodology will facilitate the quantitative exploration of the causal network linking MDD and CHD.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888090619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2174/15734005113096660012

DO - 10.2174/15734005113096660012

M3 - Review article

VL - 9

SP - 342

EP - 352

JO - Current Psychiatry Reviews

JF - Current Psychiatry Reviews

SN - 1573-4005

IS - 4

ER -