Depression and risk of fracture and bone loss: an updated meta-analysis of prospective studies
Abstract
This meta-analysis pooled results from 23 qualifying individual cohort studies and found that depression was significantly associated with an increased risk of fractures and bone loss.Introduction The association between depression and risk of fracture remains controversial. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the effect of depression on the risk of osteoporotic fractures and bone loss.Methods We searched databases and reviewed citations in relevant articles for eligible cohort studies. Two investigators independently conducted study selection, appraisal, and data abstraction through the use of a standardized protocol. Random effect models were used for meta-analysis. Cochrane Q and I 2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Funnel plots and rank correlation tests were used to evaluate publication bias.Results Twenty-three studies were included for meta-analysis. In studies that reported hazard ratio (HR) as the outcome (nine studies [n = 309,862]), depression was associated with 26% increase in fracture risk (HR = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.10-1.43, p < 0.001). Studies that reported risk ratio (RR) as the outcome (seven studies [n = 64,975]) suggested that depression was associated with 39% increase in fracture risk (RR = 1.39, 95% CI, 1.19-1.62, p < 0.001). Among studies that reported hip bone mineral density (BMD) as an outcome (eight studies [n = 15,442]), depression was associated with a reduced mean annual bone loss rate of 0.35% (0.18-0.53%, p < 0.001). The increased risk of fracture and bone loss associated with depression was consistent in all meta-analysis having modified inclusion criteria and in different subgroup analyses as well. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analysis; however, no significant publication bias was detected.Conclusion Depression is associated with a significant increased risk in fracture and bone loss. Effective prevention may decrease such risk.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MDD is associated with poor bone health.
“A growing body of evidence shows that MDD is associated with poor bone health106-109.”
From Comorbidity between major depressive disorder and physical diseases: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, mechanisms and management (2023) · cites this paper as [106]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- Wu, Q., Liu, B., & Tonmoy, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wu, Q.
- Venue
- Osteoporosis International
- Published
- 2018-03-12
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1303-1312
- ISSN
- 0937-941X (ISSN-L)
- 1433-2965
- OpenAlex
- W2791275249
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 1.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Osteoporosis International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (917D-Wu-KF)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bone Metabolism and Diseases
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
- Keywords
- depression, osteoporotic fractures, bone loss, bone mineral density, fracture risk, bone health
- MeSH terms
- Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Osteoporosis, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Publication Bias, Risk Assessment, Osteoporotic Fractures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review