Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Tortella-Feliu, Miquel, Fullana, Miquel A., Pérez-Vigil, Ana, Torres, Xavier, Chamorro, Jacobo, Littarelli, Sergio A., Solanes, Aleix, Ramella-Cravaro, Valentina, Vilar, Ana, González-Parra, José A., Andero, Raül, Reichenberg, Abraham, Mataix-Cols, David, Vieta, Eduard, Fusar-Poli, Paolo, Ioannidis, John P.A., Stein, Murray B., Radua, Joaquim, Fernández de la Cruz, Lorena·2019·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Approximately one third of individuals who experience a severe traumatic event will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is crucial to identify what factors may be associated with increased or decreased risk for PTSD. We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk/protective factors for PTSD and assessed and graded the evidence of the association between each factor and PTSD. Thirty-three systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included and 130 potential risk factors were identified. Of those, 57 showed a significant association with PTSD. Being female or being indigenous people of the Americas, among the sociodemographic factors; history of physical disease and family history of psychiatric disorder, among the pretrauma factors; and cumulative exposure to potentially traumatic experiences, trauma severity, and being trapped during an earthquake, among the peritrauma factors, showed convincing or highly suggestive evidence of an association with PTSD. Data from prospective studies were less conclusive. Our results have the potential of helping refine PTSD prediction models and contributing to the design of prevention strategies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 65 references

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Tortella-Feliu, M., Fullana, M. A., Pérez-Vigil, A., Torres, X., Chamorro, J., Littarelli, S. A., Solanes, A., Ramella-Cravaro, V., Vilar, A., González-Parra, J. A., Andero, R., Reichenberg, A., Mataix-Cols, D., Vieta, E., Fusar-Poli, P., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stein, M. B., Radua, J., & Fernández de la Cruz, L.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
107
Pages
154-165
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013
OpenAlex
W2973089156
Cited by
253
References
65
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013
The paper
Tortella-Feliu, M., Fullana, M. A., Pérez-Vigil, A., Torres, X., Chamorro, J., Littarelli, S. A., Solanes, A., Ramella-Cravaro, V., Vilar, A., González-Parra, J. A., Andero, R., Reichenberg, A., Mataix-Cols, D., Vieta, E., Fusar-Poli, P., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stein, M. B., Radua, J., & Fernández de la Cruz, L. (2019). Risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.