Measures of depression and risk of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background Depression is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to determine whether the association between depression and incident type 2 diabetes differs by measure of depression.Methods Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Cochrane Library, the University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination, abstracts from the PsychoSocial Aspects of Diabetes conference.Inclusion criteria comparison of participants with and without depression, depression measured at age 18 or older, longitudinal follow-up with an outcome of type 2 diabetes, effect estimate adjusted for important confounders, full-text available in English or French, and study at overall low or moderate risk of bias. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality.Results Twenty-one studies reporting twenty-five effect estimates were included. Depressive symptom scales, clinical interviews, physician diagnoses, and use of antidepressants were all associated with an increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes. When all measures of depression were combined, the meta-analyzed risk ratio for type 2 diabetes was 1.18 (95% CI 1.12-1.24, I 2=45.4%). Results did not provide conclusive evidence that the association between depression and incident diabetes differs by measure of depression.Limitations Results showed heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias.Conclusions Results suggest that various measures of depression may be used to identify individuals at higher risk of type 2 diabetes.
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?
People with MDD have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12-1.24).
“People with MDD have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes (risk ratio, RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12-1.24)49 and people with type 2 diabetes have a higher risk of MDD (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.02-1.30)50.”
From Comorbidity between major depressive disorder and physical diseases: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, mechanisms and management (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 94
- Authors
- Graham, E. A., Deschênes, S. S., Khalil, M. N., Danna, S., Filion, K. B., & Schmitz, N.
- Affiliations
- Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Jewish General Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Graham, Eva A
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-03
- Volume
- 265
- Pages
- 224-232
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3000288006
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PCG-155452)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
- Keywords
- depression, type 2 diabetes, incident diabetes risk, depression measurement, clinical interview, physician diagnosis, antidepressant use, psychosocial risk factors
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans
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