Is depression a major risk factor for coronary disease? A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence
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
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?
The pooled risk ratio for diabetes in severe mental illness is 1.70 (95% CI 1.21-2.37).
“Pooled risk ratio for diabetes in SMI= 1.70 (95% CI, 1.21 to 2.37)”
From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission: a blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness (2019) · cites this paper as [40]
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.
- ORCID
- 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