Dataset Information

Global Burden of Disease estimates of depression--how reliable is the epidemiological evidence?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To re-assess the quality of the epidemiological studies used to estimate the global burden of depression 2000, as published in the GBDep study.

Design

Primary and secondary data sources used in the global burden of depression estimate were identified and assigned to country of origin. Each source was assessed with respect to completeness and representativeness for national/regional estimates and against the inclusion criteria used by the scientific team estimating GBDep.

Setting

Not applicable.

Participants

Not applicable.

Main outcome measures

Not applicable.

Results

First, National estimates: The 28 scientific sources cited in the GBDep study related to 40 of the 191 WHO member countries. The EURO region had studies relating to 15 of 52 countries whereas AFRO region had studies for only three of 46 countries. Only six of the 40 countries had data drawn from a nationally representative population: the three AFRO country studies were based on a single village or town and, likewise, SEARO region had no nationally representative data; second, GBDep criteria: GBDep inclusion criteria required study sample size of more than 1000 people; 19 (45%) of the 42 studies did not meet this criterion. Sixteen (44%) of 36 studies did not meet the requirement that studies show a clear sample frame and method. GBD estimates rely on estimates of incidence; only two of the 42 country studies provided incidence data (Canada and Norway), the remaining 34 studies were prevalence studies. Duration of depression is based on three studies conducted in the USA and Holland.

Conclusions

Most studies exhibit significant shortcomings and limitations with respect to study design and analysis and compliance with GBDep inclusion criteria. Poor quality data limit the interpretation and validity of global burden of depression estimates. The uncritical application of these estimates to international healthcare policy-making could divert scarce resources from other public healthcare priorities.

SUBMITTER: Brhlikova P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3014564 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global Burden of Disease estimates of depression--how reliable is the epidemiological evidence?

Brhlikova Petra P Pollock Allyson M AM Manners Rachel R

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 20110101 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To re-assess the quality of the epidemiological studies used to estimate the global burden of depression 2000, as published in the GBDep study.<h4>Design</h4>Primary and secondary data sources used in the global burden of depression estimate were identified and assigned to country of origin. Each source was assessed with respect to completeness and representativeness for national/regional estimates and against the inclusion criteria used by the scientific team estimating GBDep ...[more]

PMID: 21205775

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Cervical cancer represents an important preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in developing countries such as Brazil. Investigating temporal evolution of a disease burden in the different realities of the country is essential for improving public policies. Objective:To describe the national and subnational burden of cervical cancer, based on the estimates of the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. Methods:Descriptive study of premature mortality (years of life lost [YLL]) and burden of disease (disability-adjusted life years [DALYs]) associated with cervical cancer among Brazilian women aged 25-64 years, between 2000 and 2017. Findings:During the study period, age-standardized incidence decreased from 23.53 (22.79-24.26) to 18.39 (17.63-19.17) per 100,000 women, while mortality rates decreased from 11.3 (11.05-11.56) to 7.74 (7.49-8.02) per 100,000 women. These rates were about two to three times greater than equivalent rates in a developed country, such as England: 11.98 (11.45-12.55) to 10.37 (9.85-10.9), and 3.75 (3.68-3.84) to 2.82 (2.75-2.9) per 100,000 women, respectively. Poorer regions of Brazil had greater rates of the disease; for instance, Amapá State in the Northern Region had rates twice as high as the national rates during the same period. Cervical cancer was the leading cause of premature cancer-related mortality (YLL = 100.69, 91.48-110.61 per 100,000 women) among young women (25-29 years) in Brazil and eight federation units of all country regions except the Southeast in 2017. There was a decrease in the burden of cervical cancer in Brazil from 339.59 (330.82-348.83) DALYs per 100,000 women in 2000 to 238.99 (230.45-247.99) DALYs per 100,000 women in 2017. Conclusion:Although there has been a reduction in the burden of cervical cancer in Brazil, the rates remain high, mainly among young women. The persistence of inequalities between regions of Brazil suggests the importance of socioeconomic determinants in the burden for this cancer.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether an association exists between the number of published randomised controlled trials and the global burden of disease, whether certain diseases are under-investigated relative to their burden, and whether the relation between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease can be explained by the relative disease burden in high and low income regions.DesignCross sectional investigation.Study sampleAll primary reports of randomised trials published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by 17 November 2013.Main outcome measuresNumber of trials conducted and number of participants randomised for each of 239 different diseases or injuries; variation in each outcome explainable by total disability adjusted life years (a measure of the overall burden of each disease) and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income to high income regions (a measure of whether a disease is more likely to affect people living in high income regions) quantified using multivariable regression.Results4190 abstracts were reviewed and 1351 primary randomised trials identified, of which 1097 could be classified using the global burden of disease taxonomy. Total disability adjusted life years was poorly associated with number of randomised trials and number of participants randomised in univariable analysis (Spearman's r=0.35 and 0.33, respectively), although it was a significant predictor in the univariable and multivariable models (P<0.001). Diseases for which the burden was predominantly located in low income regions had sevenfold fewer trials per million disability adjusted life years than diseases predominantly located in high income regions. However, only 26% of the variation in number of trials among diseases could be explained by total disability adjusted life years and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income regions to high income regions. Many high income type diseases (for example, neck pain, glomerulonephritis) have proportionally fewer randomised trials compared with low income type diseases (for example, vitamin A deficiency).ConclusionsOverall, a weak association existed between global burden of disease and number of published randomised trials. A global observatory for research is needed to monitor and reduce the discordance between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease.

Project description:BackgroundRehabilitation has often been seen as a disability-specific service needed by only few of the population. Despite its individual and societal benefits, rehabilitation has not been prioritised in countries and is under-resourced. We present global, regional, and country data for the number of people who would benefit from rehabilitation at least once during the course of their disabling illness or injury.MethodsTo estimate the need for rehabilitation, data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 were used to calculate the prevalence and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) of 25 diseases, impairments, or bespoke aggregations of sequelae that were selected as amenable to rehabilitation. All analyses were done at the country level and then aggregated to seven regions: World Bank high-income countries and the six WHO regions (ie, Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific).FindingsGlobally, in 2019, 2·41 billion (95% uncertainty interval 2·34-2·50) individuals had conditions that would benefit from rehabilitation, contributing to 310 million [235-392] YLDs. This number had increased by 63% from 1990 to 2019. Regionally, the Western Pacific had the highest need of rehabilitation services (610 million people [588-636] and 83 million YLDs [62-106]). The disease area that contributed most to prevalence was musculoskeletal disorders (1·71 billion people [1·68-1·80]), with low back pain being the most prevalent condition in 134 of the 204 countries analysed.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this is the first study to produce a global estimate of the need for rehabilitation services and to show that at least one in every three people in the world needs rehabilitation at some point in the course of their illness or injury. This number counters the common view of rehabilitation as a service required by only few people. We argue that rehabilitation needs to be brought close to communities as an integral part of primary health care to reach more people in need.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe health of populations living in extreme poverty has been a long-standing focus of global development efforts, and continues to be a priority during the Sustainable Development Goal era. However, there has not been a systematic attempt to quantify the magnitude and causes of the burden in this specific population for almost two decades. We estimated disease rates by cause for the world's poorest billion and compared these rates to those in high-income populations.MethodsWe defined the population in extreme poverty using a multidimensional poverty index. We used national-level disease burden estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study and adjusted these to account for within-country variation in rates. To adjust for within-country variation, we looked to the relationship between rates of extreme poverty and disease rates across countries. In our main modeling approach, we used these relationships when there was consistency with expert opinion from a survey we conducted of disease experts regarding the associations between household poverty and the incidence and fatality of conditions. Otherwise, no within-country variation was assumed. We compared results across multiple approaches for estimating the burden in the poorest billion, including aggregating national-level burden from the countries with the highest poverty rates. We examined the composition of the estimated disease burden among the poorest billion and made comparisons with estimates for high-income countries.ResultsThe composition of disease burden among the poorest billion, as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), was 65% communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases, 29% non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and 6% injuries. Age-standardized DALY rates from NCDs were 44% higher in the poorest billion (23,583 DALYs per 100,000) compared to high-income regions (16,344 DALYs per 100,000). Age-standardized DALY rates were 2,147% higher for CMNN conditions (32,334 DALYs per 100,000) and 86% higher for injuries (4,182 DALYs per 100,000) in the poorest billion, compared to high-income regions.ConclusionThe disease burden among the poorest people globally compared to that in high income countries is highly influenced by demographics as well as large disparities in burden from many conditions. The comparisons show that the largest disparities remain in communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases, though NCDs and injuries are an important part of the "unfinished agenda" of poor health among those living in extreme poverty.

Project description:BackgroundAnorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are the only eating disorders included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, yet binge-eating disorder and other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) are more prevalent. This study sought to estimate the prevalence and burden of binge-eating disorder and OSFED globally and present a case for their inclusion in GBD.MethodsWe sourced studies from the GBD 2019 anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa epidemiological databases, two systematic reviews that included studies with epidemiological estimates of binge-eating disorder and OSFED, and experts in the field. Studies, published between Jan 1, 1998, and March 1, 2019, were included if they reported non-zero prevalence of two or more eating disorders (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder, or OSFED) and diagnosed cases according to DSM-IV or DSM-5. The proportions of total eating disorder cases that met diagnostic criteria for each individual eating disorder were estimated via network meta-regression and simulation using studies reporting eating disorder prevalence. The global cases unrepresented in GBD 2019 were estimated using the proportions from the simulation and the GBD 2019 eating disorder prevalence. Disability weights for binge-eating disorder and OSFED were then estimated along with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Estimates are presented with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).Findings54 studies, of which 36 were from high-income countries, were included in the analysis. The number of global eating disorder cases in 2019 that were unrepresented in GBD 2019 was 41·9 million (95% UI 27·9-59·0), and consisted of 17·3 million (11·3-24·9) people with binge-eating disorder and 24·6 million (14·7-39·7) people with OSFED (vs 13·6 million [10·2-17·5] people with eating disorders in GBD 2019). Together, binge-eating disorder and OSFED caused 3·7 million (95% UI 2·0-6·5) DALYs globally, bringing the total eating disorder DALYs to 6·6 million (3·8-10·6) in 2019.InterpretationBinge-eating disorder and OSFED accounted for the majority of eating disorder cases and DALYs globally. These findings warrant the inclusion of binge-eating disorder and OSFED in future iterations of GBD, which will bring the burden experienced by people living with these disorders to the attention of policy makers with the means to target this burden.FundingQueensland Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Global Burden of Disease estimates of depression--how reliable is the epidemiological evidence?

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Global Burden of Disease estimates of depression--how reliable is the epidemiological evidence?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets