Cited by 117Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCardiac Health and Mental HealthAdipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases

Association between anxiety and metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

Tang, Fang, Wang, Gangpu, Lian, Ying·2017·Psychoneuroendocrinology

Abstract

Objective Epidemiological studies have repeatedly investigated the association between anxiety and metabolic syndrome (MetS). However, the results have been inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of anxiety and MetS risk.Methods We performed a systematic literature search of all studies published in PubMed and EMBASE from its inception to June 2016. Cross-sectional and cohort studies that reported an association between the two conditions in adults were included. Data on prevalence, incidence, unadjusted or adjusted odds ratio (OR), and 95% CI were extracted or provided independently by the authors. Random effects model was used to report the pooled OR. The I 2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Egger's test and Begger's test were used to evaluate the publication bias.Results The search yielded 18 cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies. The pooled finding from cross-sectional studies showed that anxiety had a significant positive association with MetS (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.12), with moderate heterogeneity (I 2=45.7%, P=0.018). Findings from two cohort studies indicated that the association between anxiety and MetS was insignificant.Conclusion Our results suggest that there is an association between anxiety and MetS. In individuals with MetS anxiety should be detected and managed. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the bidirectional association between anxiety and MetS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.11.025

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The odds of developing major depressive disorder and anxiety increase as a function of the number of coexisting metabolic impairments, such as those characteristic of metabolic syndrome.

    “The odds of developing major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety increase as a function of the number of coexisting metabolic impairments, such as those characteristic of metabolic syndrome [3,4].”

    From The menace of obesity to depression and anxiety prevalence (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, F., Wang, G., & Lian, Y.
Affiliations
  • Shandong University (CN)
  • Fourth People’s Hospital of Jinan (CN)
Corresponding author
Lian, Ying
Venue
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
77
Pages
112-121
ISSN
0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2558935924
Cited by
117
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Adipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases
Keywords
anxiety, metabolic syndrome, psychological stress, cardiovascular risk factors, bidirectional relationship, prevalence, incidence
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Metabolic Syndrome

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