Cited by 231Smoking Behavior and CessationMental Health Treatment and AccessSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

How robust is the association between smoking and depression in adults? A meta-analysis using linear mixed-effects models

Luger, Tana M., Suls, Jerry, Vander Weg, Mark W.·2014·Addictive Behaviors

Abstract

Introduction Our objective was to use meta-analytic techniques to assess the strength of the overall relationship and role of potential moderators in the association between smoking and depression in adults.Methods Two popular health and social science databases (PubMed and PsycINFO) were systematically searched to identify studies which examined the association between adult smoking behavior and major depressive disorder (MDD) or depressive symptoms. A total of 85 relevant studies were selected for inclusion. Studies were analyzed using a linear mixed effects modeling package ("lme4" for R) and the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program version 2.Results Multiple nested linear mixed-effects models were compared. The best fitting models were those that included only random study effects and smoking status. In cross-sectional studies, current smokers were more likely to be depressed than never smokers (OR=1.50, CI=1.39-1.60), and current smokers were more likely to be depressed than former smokers (OR=1.76, CI=1.48-2.09). The few available prospective studies, that used the requisite statistical adjustments, also showed smokers at baseline had greater odds of incident depression at follow-up than never smokers (OR=1.62, CI=1.10-2.40).Conclusions In cross-sectional studies, smoking was associated with a nearly two-fold increased risk of depression relative to both never smokers and former smokers. In the smaller set of prospective studies, the odds of subsequent depression were also higher for current than never smokers. Attesting to its robustness, the relationship between smoking and depression was exhibited across several moderators. Findings could help health care providers to more effectively anticipate co-occurring health issues of their patients. Several methodological recommendations for future research are offered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.05.011

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luger, T. M., Suls, J., & Vander Weg, M. W.
Affiliations
  • Center for Health Optimization and Implementation Research (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
39
Issue
10
Pages
1418-1429
ISSN
0306-4603 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010525475
Cited by
231
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addictive Behaviors (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
smoking, depression, major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms, current smokers, former smokers, never smokers, incident depression, risk factors, moderator analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Smoking, Linear Models, Odds Ratio

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