Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies

Open access
Santabárbara, Javier, Lasheras, Isabel, Lipnicki, Darren M., Bueno-Notivol, Juan, Pérez-Moreno, María, López-Antón, Raúl, De la Cámara, Concepción, Lobo, Antonio, Gracia-García, Patricia·2021·Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110207
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The unprecedented worldwide crisis caused by the rapid spread of COVID-19 and the restrictive public health measures enforced by some countries to slow down its transmission have severely threatened the physical and mental wellbeing of communities globally. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of anxiety in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two researchers independently searched for cross-sectional community-based studies published between December 1, 2019 and August 23, 2020, using PubMed, WoS, Embase, and other sources (e.g., grey literature, manual search). Results Of 3049 records retrieved, 43 studies were included. These studies yielded an estimated overall prevalence of anxiety of 25%, which varied significantly across the different tools used to measure anxiety. Consistently reported risk factors for the development of anxiety included initial or peak phase of the outbreak, female sex, younger age, marriage, social isolation, unemployment and student status, financial hardship, low educational level, insufficient knowledge of COVID-19, epidemiological or clinical risk of disease and some lifestyle and personality variables. Conclusions As the overall global prevalence of anxiety disorders is estimated to be 7.3% normally, our results suggest that rates of anxiety in the general population could be more than 3 times higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest a substantial impact on mental health that should be targeted by individual and population-level 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.pnpbp.2020.110207

Cites

95 of 95 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 95 references

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
Santabárbara, J., Lasheras, I., Lipnicki, D. M., Bueno-Notivol, J., Pérez-Moreno, M., López-Antón, R., De la Cámara, C., Lobo, A., & Gracia-García, P.
Venue
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-07
Volume
109
Pages
110207
ISSN
0278-5846 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110207
OpenAlex
W3111079837
Cited by
426
References
95
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110207
The paper
Santabárbara, J., Lasheras, I., Lipnicki, D. M., Bueno-Notivol, J., Pérez-Moreno, M., López-Antón, R., De la Cámara, C., Lobo, A., & Gracia-García, P. (2021). Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110207

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.