The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 27 of the 57 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence
Open accessAbstract
Highlights • COVID-19 patients displayed high levels of PTSS and increased levels of depression.• Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders reported worsening of psychiatric symptoms.• Higher levels of psychiatric symptoms were found among health care workers.• A decrease in psychological well-being was observed in the general public.• However, well conducted large-scale studies are highly needed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 of 57 cited sources checked · 17 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“No difference in PTSS was observed (Sun et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Sun et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports the opposite of the attributed claim. In “Associated factors for the severity of PTSD,” it states that PCL-5 scores differed significantly by population classification (p < 0.001), with health care workers reporting lower symptom levels than both low-risk and high-risk public groups. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Disputed
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“lower education (Liu et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of PTSS, psychological distress and affected general mental health
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Liu et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Results > Related factors of the occurrence of PTSS (page unavailable), the initial regression shows lower PTSS scores for respondents with high-school education or below than for those with university or college education. That difference is not significant in the final model. Results > The prevalence and demographic characteristics likewise reports a lower mean PTSS score for the lower-education group, not the higher risk claimed. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The risk of PTSS were positively associated with female gender (Sun et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of PTSS, psychological distress and affected general mental health
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sun et al., 2020 source
The paper’s ‘Predictive and risk factors for PTSD’ section reports that gender was a significant predictor (p < 0.001) and that females reported higher PTSD levels. Table 3 also shows a positive coefficient for female versus male on the PCL-5 symptom score. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites Liu et al., 2020 source
The Results section (‘The gender difference in the PTSS’; page not specified) reports higher PTSS symptom prevalence in females than males, with significant differences in several symptom domains. This supports the claimed positive association with female gender. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“one study found no difference between being in quarantine (n = 1443) or not (n = 836) (Zhu et al., 2020).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zhu et al., 2020 source
The paper reports 1,443 participants with quarantine and 836 without it (Abstract; page not specified). It states that quarantine was not related to the prevalence of mental health problems, supporting the cited comparison in the context of mental health. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 1,443Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Poor-self rated health (Wang et al., 2020a, Gao et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2020b)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Gao et al., 2020 source
The Results section (‘Depression and SME’; page not provided) says that declining self-rated health was significantly associated with increased odds of depression. The ‘Anxiety and SME’ and ‘Combination of depression and anxiety and SME’ sections also report higher adjusted odds for participants with less-than-excellent self-rated health. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Working in frontline compared to second line (Lu et al., 2020b, Lai et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lu et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Lai et al., 2020 source
The Results section (Risk Factors of Mental Health Outcomes, Table 5) compares frontline with second-line workers and reports higher adjusted odds of severe depression (OR 1.52) and anxiety (OR 1.57) among frontline workers. This supports the claimed association, though the study describes symptoms rather than clinical diagnoses. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“living in Hubei province (Sun et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of PTSS, psychological distress and affected general mental health
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sun et al., 2020 source
The Discussion (page not supplied) reports that Hubei residents had the highest level of PTSD symptoms. The Associated factors for the severity of PTSD section also reports a statistically significant difference in PCL-5 scores by location. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Partly supportedcites Liu et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page not provided) report significantly higher PCL-5 scores among respondents currently or previously in Wuhan than among those outside Wuhan. The Methods identify the study area as Wuhan and surrounding cities in Hubei, but the paper does not establish an association for living anywhere in Hubei province versus living outside the province. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Current medical disease (including psychiatric disorders and substance abuse) (Zhang et al., 2020b, Wang et al., 2020a, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020), and a past medical history (including psychiatric history and substance abuse) (Wang et al., 2020a, Mazza et al., 2020, Li et al., 2020c, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020) were associated with/increased the risk of depression and/or anxiety.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report higher depression scores among participants with current psychiatric illness or chronic disease, and higher anxiety scores among those with current psychiatric illness. The paper does not identify substance abuse as a studied condition, and its adjusted analysis does not establish current medical disease as a risk factor for depression or anxiety; the claim is supported as an association, not across every condition it names. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“relatives/friends/acquaintance suspected of/acquired COVID-19 (Cao et al., 2020, Mazza et al., 2020, Du et al., 2020, Li et al., 2020c, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020, Kang et al., 2020a)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Cao et al., 2020 source
The Results (Factors influencing college students’ anxiety) report that having a relative or acquaintance infected with COVID-19 was associated with greater anxiety among Chinese college students (OR = 3.007). This supports the cited association through the infection-and-anxiety alternatives in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Mazza et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that having an acquaintance infected with COVID-19 was associated with increased depression, while having an infected relative was associated with increased anxiety. The survey methods ask about acquaintances and loved ones who were or had been infected; the cited paper does not establish the claimed association for merely suspected cases or separately for friends. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Du et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“while two papers found no difference (compared to the general public (Huang and Zhao, 2020) and non-frontline workers (Liang et al., 2020)).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Huang and Zhao, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Liang et al., 2020 source
The study results report no statistically significant difference in depression (SDS) or anxiety (SAS) scores between staff in COVID-19-associated departments and staff in other departments. That supports the part of the citing sentence attributed to Liang et al.; the general-public comparison is attributed to a different paper. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Current medical disease (including psychiatric disorders and substance abuse) (Zhang et al., 2020b, Wang et al., 2020a, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020), and a past medical history (including psychiatric history and substance abuse) (Wang et al., 2020a, Mazza et al., 2020, Li et al., 2020c, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020) were associated with/increased the risk of depression and/or anxiety.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Mazza et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (§4.1–4.2; page not provided) associate a history of medical problems with higher depression and anxiety levels. But the Methods (§2.3; page not provided) describe the history question as covering previous physical diseases, such as cardiovascular or oncological conditions; the paper does not establish the claimed association for psychiatric history or substance abuse. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not matchedcites Li et al., 2020c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“which is far higher than found in the general public (7%) (Liu et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Liu et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that 20 of 285 participants (7%) met the criteria for PTSS, and the Discussion identifies the population as people in China's hardest-hit areas. This supports the 7% public comparator, but not a prevalence estimate for the general public more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“but not with age (Sun et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of PTSS, psychological distress and affected general mental health
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sun et al., 2020 source
The Associated factors for the severity of PTSD section reports no significant difference in PCL-5 scores across age groups (p = 0.089). It also states that the regression analysis found age was not related to PTSD symptoms during the outbreak. This supports the claim for the study's participants. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“subjective sleep quality (Sun et al., 2020, Liu et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of PTSS, psychological distress and affected general mental health
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sun et al., 2020 source
The Measures section defines the subjective sleep-quality scale so that higher ratings mean worse sleep. In “Associated factors for the severity of PTSD,” the paper reports that worse sleep quality was associated with higher PCL-5 symptom scores (p < 0.001). Thus the positive association is with poorer rated sleep quality, not better sleep. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Liu et al., 2020 source
The Results (Related factors of the occurrence of PTSS) report a positive association between PTSS scores and the subjective sleep-quality variable, coded as bad or very bad versus good or very good. The Discussion likewise says participants with worse sleep quality had higher PTSS prevalence. The direction applies to poorer sleep quality, not better sleep quality. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“this could indicate that long lasting symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 also must be expected.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > COVID-19 pandemic and impact on mental health in the general public
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Peng et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods report a survey four months after Taiwan’s SARS crisis, and the Results document psychological distress and psychiatric morbidity among residents. This supports the possibility of post-crisis psychological symptoms after SARS, but the paper does not study SARS-CoV-2 or establish that long-lasting symptoms after it must be expected. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
In the paper
“One study evaluated symptoms of patients with eating disorders during the pandemic and found 37.5% to report worsening in their eating disorder symptomatology and 56.2% to report additional anxiety symptoms (Fernandez-Aranda et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with psychiatric disorders prior to and during COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fernandez-Aranda et al., 2020 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Higher levels of obsessive–compulsive disorder symptoms were reported in medical health workers compared to non-medical staff (Zhang et al., 2020b).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“another study reported that 20.9% of patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders reported worsening of their symptoms, but did not report the preexisting diagnoses (Zhou et al., 2020).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders reported worsening of psychiatric symptoms.”
- Also stated in: § COVID-19 pandemic and impact on psychiatric symptoms among psychiatric patients · hedged
“Worsening of the psychiatric symptoms among some patients with pre-existing psychiatric disorders, was reported (Fernandez-Aranda et al., 2020, Zhou et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with psychiatric disorders prior to and during COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhou et al., 2020 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“one study revealed increased use of words as emotional indicators of anxiety and depression (on Weibo), when compared to prior to the outbreak (Li et al., 2020b).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Poor sleep quality was found among health care workers compared to norms (Xiao et al., 2020a).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Xiao et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Vicarious traumatization scale scores were actually less elevated (P < 0.001) when comparing to the general public (Li et al., 2020a).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Li et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“Regarding the general public one paper revealed lower psychological well-being (WHO-5) compared to before COVID-19 (Sonderskov et al., 2020)”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“A decrease in psychological well-being was observed in the general public.”
- Also stated in: § Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public · plain
“one paper revealed lower psychological well-being (WHO-5) compared to before COVID-19”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sonderskov et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“The second study showed that the prevalence of depression (29.2%) was elevated (p = 0.016) among 57 patients newly recovered from COVID-19 compared to participants in quarantine (9.8%), while no difference in anxiety level was found (P = 0.154).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 57Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“One study evaluated symptoms of patients with eating disorders during the pandemic and found 37.5% to report worsening in their eating disorder symptomatology and 56.2% to report additional anxiety symptoms (Fernandez-Aranda et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with psychiatric disorders prior to and during COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fernandez-Aranda et al., 2020 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“higher perceived stress load (Mo et al., 2020, Du et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mo et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Du et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“The first study showed that PTSS were present among 96.2% out of 714 hospitalized but stabile patients.”
- Also stated in: § Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients · boosted
“levels of PTSS were found to be very high (96.2%) among patients during hospital admission with COVID-19 infection (Bo et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bo et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients · boosted
In the paper
“However, a study found no significant difference in anxiety, depression or stress symptoms when comparing scores measured in a period with increase in number of confirmed cases to a period with increase in number of recovered cases (P > 0.05); however, only 333 of the 1210 cases were followed up (Wang et al., 2020a).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 1,210Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the current evidence is scarce concerning direct effects of COVID-19 on mental health, there are indications of increased levels of PTSS and depression following the COVID-19 infection.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Conclusion and perspectives
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, the literature on psychiatric symptoms among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and among psychiatric patients were very limited.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“however, only 333 of the 1210 cases were followed up (Wang et al., 2020a).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 1,210Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we must expect a huge after-wave of patients surviving COVID-19 suffering from depression.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Health care workers should be regarded as a highly exposed group with a higher risk of psychiatric symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and risk factors are female gender and frontline workers among others.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > COVID-19 pandemic and impact on psychiatric symptoms among health care workers
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, the majority of the studies were conducted in Asia (only four studies from Europe and none from other continents), limiting the current generalization of the results.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 3
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One study found no significant difference in any items between workers/technical staff (n = 551) and management/executive staff (n = 122) (all P > 0.05) (Tan et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tan et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on immediate mental health status reports no significant differences between the groups in PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, stress or insomnia (p > 0.05). But “any items” and “all P > 0.05” overstate the finding: the Results also report a difference in worries about young children’s health (p = 0.028), and Table 4 reports differences in some prevention measures (p = 0.040 and 0.048). Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 551Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“female gender (Zhang et al., 2020b, Lai et al., 2020, Mazza et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2020b, Ozdin and Bayrak Ozdin, 2020) was reported frequently, but was not consistent (Chen et al., 2020, Gao et al., 2020)”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Risk factors of anxiety and depression
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Lai et al., 2020 source
The Results (Risk Factors of Mental Health Outcomes, Table 5) associate being a woman with severe depression and anxiety among surveyed health care workers. In the citing sentence, Lai et al. supports the reported association; the statement that findings were inconsistent is attributed to Chen et al. and Gao et al., not to Lai et al. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Mazza et al., 2020 source
Mazza et al. report in the Results (§§4.1–4.2) that female gender was associated with higher depression and anxiety levels. The citing sentence attaches Mazza et al. to the frequently reported association; it cites Chen and Gao, not Mazza, for inconsistent findings. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Among health care workers depression/depressive symptoms (six papers) and anxiety (eight papers) were increased”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Chen et al., 2020 source
The study’s results report significantly higher anxiety and depression scale scores among pediatric medical staff than general Chinese population norms during the COVID-19 outbreak. This supports the cited sentence’s increased-symptoms finding for this study’s population. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Mo et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lu et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Furthermore a study of parents of children hospitalized during the epidemic period had significant higher scores of anxiety, depression and dream anxiety compared to parents of children hospitalized in the non-epidemic period (all p < 0.001) (Yuan et al., 2020).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among the general public
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Yuan et al., 2020 source
Table 1 reports higher anxiety, depression, and dream anxiety scores for parents of children hospitalized during the epidemic than for those in the non-epidemic period. Each comparison has p < 0.001. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Among health care workers depression/depressive symptoms (six papers) and anxiety (eight papers) were increased”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress among health care workers
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Chen et al., 2020 source
The study’s results report that pediatric medical staff had significantly higher self-rated depression scores than the general Chinese population norm during the COVID-19 outbreak. This supports the claim’s comparison with norms; the other listed comparators are not needed for this citation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Mo et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lu et al., 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Taken together this indicates that SARS-CoV-2 could be neurotrophic entering the brain through the olfactory bulb, leading to an increase in neuropsychiatric symptoms among the patients surviving COVID-19.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Potential biological mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 and the effect on psychiatric symptoms
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Troyer et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Viral infiltration into the central nervous system” section describes possible coronavirus entry via the olfactory nerve and discusses SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion. The “Sub-acute to chronic neuropsychiatric sequelae” section says long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors were still unknown. The paper does not specifically identify the olfactory bulb as the entry route or establish that this route would increase neuropsychiatric symptoms in survivors. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Netland et al., 2008 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This higher risk could be due to the corona-virus affecting the brain directly or indirectly by inducing a massive cytokine response affecting the brain (Troyer et al., 2020).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Troyer et al., 2020 source
The ‘Depression, anxiety, and trauma-related disorders’ section discusses depression after coronavirus infection and says it is unclear whether psychiatric risks arise from infection itself or the host immune response. The ‘Cytokine network dysregulation’ section proposes that peripheral cytokines may cause neuropsychiatric symptoms even without viral entry into the brain. Together with the paper’s discussion of direct CNS infiltration, these passages support the citing sentence’s tentative explanation, not an established cause of depression in COVID-19 patients. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
In the paper
“The second study showed that the prevalence of depression (29.2%) was elevated (p = 0.016) among 57 patients newly recovered from COVID-19 compared to participants in quarantine (9.8%), while no difference in anxiety level was found (P = 0.154).”
- Also stated in: § Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients · plain
“The risk of depression was also found to be higher among patients with COVID-19 (Zhang et al., 2020a).”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Results > Patients with COVID-19
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhang et al., 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Psychiatric symptoms among COVID-19 patients · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, the majority of the studies were conducted in Asia (only four studies from Europe and none from other continents), limiting the current generalization of the results.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, most of the studies were not case-control studies no (35/43) and with a variety of reported outcomes, measuring of outcomes and statistical analysis was revealed.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strength of this review is that it was systematically conducted.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the indirect effects of COVID-19 on general mental health there seems to be evidence of an increase in depressive and anxiety symptoms along with negative impact on general mental health, particularly among health care workers.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Conclusion and perspectives
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the altered living conditions many of the identified risk factors will increase most likely leading to an increase in patients.”
§ COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence > Discussion > Risk factors of psychiatric symptoms in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A systematic review of 19 of 43 studies in the public demonstrated mental health changes in psychological well-being, anxiety and depression early in the pandemic [23].”
From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Health care workers reported the highest rates of disturbed sleep in 20 of the 41 studies [23].”
From Overview of sleep management during COVID-19. (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies reported that a considerable proportion of nurses were experiencing high levels of depression, anxiety, psychological distress, post-traumatic symptoms, burnout, and insomnia (4–6).”
From Translation, adaptation, and initial evaluation of a guided self-help intervention to reduce psychological distress among nurses during COVID-19 in China (2023) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significantly higher levels of distress in the general population and people with persistent pain (Salari et al., 2020;Vindegaard & Benros, 2020;Yu al., 2021).”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for women living with Vulvodynia: A single-case experimental design study of a treatment delivered online (2022) · cites this paper as Vindegaard & Benros, 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Further to this, pre-existing medical conditions, chronic illness and/or self-evaluated poor health, are considerable risk factors for loneliness, anxiety, depression and psychological distress [7,8,9].”
From The impact of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak on the psychological flexibility and behaviour of cancelling medical appointments of italian patients with pre-existing medical condition: The “impact-COVID-19 for patients” multi-centre observational study (2021) · cites this paper as [9]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A systematic review conducted early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that people who had previously been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus had significantly higher levels of depression symptoms compared to those who had never been infected (Vindegaard and Benros 2020).”
From Illness Stigma and Shame in People With Chronic Illnesses vs. SARS‐CoV‐2 Survivors: Associations With Psychological Distress Through Psychological Flexibility and Self‐Compassion. (2024) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Benros 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the mental health of individuals and communities worldwide [1].”
From Synchronous Web-Based Psychotherapy for Mental Disorders From a Health Quality Perspective: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“studies on the general public revealed lower psychological well-being and higher scores of anxiety and depression compared to before COVID-19 [10].”
From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicidal attempts and death rates: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“The evidence on the mental health harms caused by the response to COVID-19 found to be overwhelming”
From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicidal attempts and death rates: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous studies from countries around the world (see Luo et al., 2020; Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020 for a review), we found that belonging to a risk group for a severe course of COVID-19, a current or past treatment due to mental health problems, being unemployed or non-working, a lower educational level and younger age were associated with negative mental health”
From Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: Associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous studies from countries around the world (see Luo et al., 2020; Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020 for a review), we found that belonging to a risk group for a severe course of COVID-19, a current or past treatment due to mental health problems, being unemployed or non-working, a lower educational level and younger age were associated with negative mental health”
From Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: Associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous studies from countries around the world (see Luo et al., 2020; Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020 for a review), we found that belonging to a risk group for a severe course of COVID-19, a current or past treatment due to mental health problems, being unemployed or non-working, a lower educational level and younger age were associated with negative mental health”
From Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: Associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous studies from countries around the world (see Luo et al., 2020; Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020 for a review), we found that belonging to a risk group for a severe course of COVID-19, a current or past treatment due to mental health problems, being unemployed or non-working, a lower educational level and younger age were associated with negative mental health”
From Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: Associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous studies from countries around the world (see Luo et al., 2020; Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020 for a review), we found that belonging to a risk group for a severe course of COVID-19, a current or past treatment due to mental health problems, being unemployed or non-working, a lower educational level and younger age were associated with negative mental health”
From Lockdown, quarantine measures, and social distancing: Associations with depression, anxiety and distress at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults from Germany (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“With regard to the risk factor related to psychopathology, consistently with previous epidemiological studies, we have found that females, and patients with positive previous psychiatric diagnoses, suffered more in all psychopathological dimensions (Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020, Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020, Pappa et al., 2020).”
From Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors: role of inflammatory and clinical predictors (2020) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Eriksen Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“In addition, psychological, social, and job-related factors have also been shown to be associated with poor mental health outcomes (Vindegaard and Benros, 2020).”
From Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as Vindegaard and Benros, 2020
In the citing paper
“Various studies instead reported a deterioration of people’s mental health [5,6,98,99].”
From Positive Impact of Mindfulness Meditation on Mental Health of Female Teachers during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy (2020) · cites this paper as [99]
In the citing paper
“In line, a small COVID-19 patients’ study concluded that preexisting psychiatric disease patients reported mental symptom worsening following infection with the virus [162].”
From Hyperactivation of P2X7 receptors as a culprit of COVID-19 neuropathology (2021) · cites this paper as [162]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Cited works that were retracted
Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.
Cites a retracted work: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102052
InfoThe cited work was retracted on 2020-11-03 (notice 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102482), not before this paper was published (2020-10).
Cited work 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102052 · retracted 2020-11-03 · notice 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102482 · this paper published 2020-10
“…lower levels of lymphocytes have been reported among severe cases compared to nonsevere (Mao et al., 2020), and patients with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported to have high amounts of the pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1beta, IFNgamma, IP10 and MCP-1) suggesting a Th1 response (Huang, 2020).”
Cites a retracted work: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102482
InfoThe cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.
Cited work 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102482 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2020-10
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
RETRACTED: Chinese mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic
Huang, Y., & Zhao, N. (2020) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102052 · Cited by 187 · cited 1×
“…lower levels of lymphocytes have been reported among severe cases compared to nonsevere (Mao et al., 2020), and patients with SARS-CoV-2 have been reported to have high amounts of the pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1beta, IFNgamma, IP10 and MCP-1) suggesting a Th1 response (Huang, 2020).”
BackgroundRetractedHuang, Y., & Zhao, N. (2020) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102482 · Cited by 16
RetractedClinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China
Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, G., Xu, J., Gu, X., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30183-5 · Cited by 48,884
The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3532534 · Cited by 16,394
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30460-8 · Cited by 16,378
Lu, R., Zhao, X., Li, J., Niu, P., Yang, B., Wu, H., Wang, W., Song, H., Huang, B., Zhu, N., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30251-8 · Cited by 11,907
Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C. S., & Ho, R. C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17051729 · Cited by 9,923
Lai, J., Ma, S., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Hu, J., Wei, N., Wu, J., Du, H., Chen, T., Li, R., et al. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3976 · Cited by 8,015
Neurologic manifestations of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China
Mao, L., Jin, H., Wang, M., Hu, Y., Chen, S., He, Q., Chang, J., Hong, C., Zhou, Y., Wang, D., et al. (2020) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1127 · Cited by 7,166
The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng, J. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934 · Cited by 5,843
Flagged first, then by citations
8 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Haldrup, 2020, Lugte- og smagstab som primære symptom på COVID-19, Ugeskr. Laeger, 04200205
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Taquet, M., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Luciano, S., & Harrison, P. J. (2021) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00084-5 · Cited by 2,189
“11 Similar concerns have been raised regarding psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, 12,13 with evidence showing that survivors are indeed at increased risk of mood and anxiety disorders in the 3 months after infection.”
Anxiety and depression in COVID-19 survivors: role of inflammatory and clinical predictors
Mazza, M. G., De Lorenzo, R., Conte, C., Poletti, S., Vai, B., Bollettini, I., Melloni, E. M. T., Furlan, R., Ciceri, F., Rovere-Querini, P., et al. (2020) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.07.037 · Cited by 1,804
Browning, M. H. E. M., Larson, L. R., Sharaievska, I., Rigolon, A., McAnirlin, O., Mullenbach, L., Cloutier, S., Vu, T. M., Thomsen, J., Reigner, N., et al. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245327 · Cited by 888
Muller, A. E., Hafstad, E. V., Himmels, J. P. W., Smedslund, G., Flottorp, S., Stensland, S. Ø., Stroobants, S., Van de Velde, S., & Vist, G. E. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113441 · Cited by 895
Prati, G., & Mancini, A. D. (2021) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291721000015 · Cited by 890
“Finally, Vindegaard and Benros suggest that ‘currently data is scarce, but indicates that mental health is affected in the general public’ (Vindegaard & Benros, 2020, p. 10).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Vindegaard, N., & Benros, M. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Benros, Michael Eriksen
- Venue
- Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 89
- Pages
- 531-542
- ISSN
- 0889-1591 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7260522
- OpenAlex
- W3030352285
- Semantic Scholar
- 8a38f13dce8d78d0fbc6d177afa5e432bf13e6f7
- Cited by
- 3,221
- References
- 106
- Citations by year
- 2026: 112 · 2025: 198 · 2024: 328 · 2023: 602 · 2022: 853 · 2021: 905 · 2020: 216
- FWCI
- 50.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Brain Behavior and Immunity (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Lundbeckfonden
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, psychiatric symptoms, posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, sleep quality, healthcare workers, psychological well-being, risk factors, gender differences
- MeSH terms
- Betacoronavirus, Psychological Distress, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Anxiety, Mental Disorders, Depression, Health Personnel, Humans, Mental Health, Pneumonia, Viral, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Coronavirus Infections, Disease Progression, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Pandemics
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
