A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies comparing mental health before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020

  1. Eric Robinson
  2. Angelina R. Sutin
  3. Michael Daly
  4. Andrew Jones

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.jad.2021.09.098
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.04.21252921: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Eligibility Criteria: Article Identification: We searched Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PsychInfo from January 2020 to January 11, 2021, using combinations of coronavirus and mental health relevant search terms (see online supplementary materials).
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    We searched three databases for unpublished pre-prints; Open Science Framework (inclusive of 30 preprint archives, e.g. PsychArxiv), MedrXiv and the Social Science Research Network, and conducted forward citation tracking (Google Scholar) for all eligible articles.
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    A limitation of these studies is that although questionnaires used have been shown to be valid indicators of clinically relevant mental health disorder symptomology, it was common for response formats to be altered to ask participants to report on shorter time frames (e.g. the last week). Therefore, these studies provide an indication of acute symptom severity rather than clinical diagnostic value (e.g. anxiety disorder diagnosis typically requires symptoms for several months (28)). In contrast to the fear that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause a parallel and longstanding mental health crisis (2, 3), the present findings suggest that overall there has been considerable resilience in mental health. Data on recorded suicides align with this, as there have been stable rates or decreases reported across a number of countries (29). However, there is a need for continued mental health provision and monitoring particularly during periods of increased COVID-19 infection and death. The increase in depression and mood disorder symptoms that did not return to pre-pandemic levels warrants attention, as even a small upward shift in depressive symptoms may have meaningful cumulative consequences on the population-level. There are limitations to the studies included. The majority of studies sampled populations in developed countries during the early stages of the pandemic. Given that there have been second waves of the pandemic in many countries during early 2021, it will be important to co...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.04.21252921v1 on medRxiv