Cited by 74Cardiac Health and Mental HealthCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsMental Health Treatment and Access

Is depression a major risk factor for coronary disease? A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence

Wulsin, Lawson R.·2004·Harvard Review of Psychiatry

Abstract

My objective is to examine systematically the status of the current evidence for and against depression as an independent major risk factor for coronary disease. From English-language reports on depression and coronary disease in MEDLINE (1966-2002) and PsycINFO (1967-2002), and from informal searches, I selected all studies that addressed the specific questions related to the established criteria for risk-factor status: (1) strength of association, (2) prediction, (3) specificity, (4) consistency, (5) dose-response effect, (6) biological plausibility, and (7) response to treatment. I find that the evidence for depression as a coronary disease risk factor is good for four criteria: strength of association, prediction, consistency, and dose-response effect. The evidence on specificity and biological plausibility is fair. Due to the lack of definitive studies, there is currently insufficient evidence for cardiac risk reduction in response to treatment for depression. My conclusion is that the evidence for depression's role as an independent major risk factor for coronary disease is good in four areas, but not yet conclusive in three, pointing to the need for three types of studies: (1) prospective, observational studies that address specificity questions, (2) studies of biological mechanisms linking depression and coronary disease, and (3) clinical trials of treatments for depression in people with coronary disease or at high risk for developing coronary disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10673220490447191

Cites

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 110 · Cited by 74

Authors
Wulsin, L. R.
Affiliations
University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Wulsin, Lawson R.
Venue
Harvard Review of Psychiatry
Published
2004-03
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
79-93
ISSN
1067-3229 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014125358
Cited by
74
References
110
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Harvard Review of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
depression, coronary artery disease, cardiovascular risk factors, dose-response relationship, biological plausibility, specificity, depression treatment response, cardiovascular risk reduction
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Risk Factors, Myocardial Ischemia

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