Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder
McKinnon MC, Yucel K, Nazarov A, MacQueen GM.. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN, 2009-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Some, although not all, studies report small hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) relative to healthy controls. Here, we explore the contribution of key demographic and clinical variables to this difference. Methods We used meta-analytic techniques to provide an updated analysis of data from 32 magnetic resonance imaging studies of hippocampal volume in patients with MDD. Results Our analysis confirmed the difference in hippocampal volume, but only among patients with MDD whose duration of illness was longer than 2 years or who had more than 1 disease episode. We found no such effect in studies that included patients who did not fit these criteria. The effect was limited to children and middle-aged or older adults. Analyzed collectively, studies including young adult patients showed equivalent hippocampal volumes across MDD patients and controls, a result that may be attributable to a reduced burden of illness in this population. Age at onset of disease, severity of depression at the time of scanning, sex and slice thickness did not contribute to differences in hippocampal volume between patients with MDD and controls. Limitations The small size of many of the clinical and demographic subgroups may have limited statistical power to detect between-group differences. Conclusion Although all studies were cross-sectional, our results suggest that hippocampal volume reductions generally occur after disease onset in patients with MDD. These findings have implications for the timing of clinical interventions aimed at reducing the impact of MDD on neuronal structure and function.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
McKinnon, M. C., Yucel, K., Nazarov, A., & MacQueen, G. M. (2009). A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN.
Vancouver
McKinnon MC, Yucel K, Nazarov A, MacQueen GM. A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN. 2009. PMID: 19125212.
BibTeX
@article{mckinnon2009-19125212,
author = {McKinnon, M. C. and Yucel, K. and Nazarov, A. and MacQueen, G. M.},
title = {{A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder}},
journal = {Journal of psychiatry \& neuroscience : JPN},
year = {2009},
pmid = {19125212}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Our analysis confirmed the difference in hippocampal volume, but only among patients with MDD whose duration of illness was longer than 2 years or who had more than 1 disease episode.
- We found no such effect in studies that included patients who did not fit these criteria.
- Analyzed collectively, studies including young adult patients showed equivalent hippocampal volumes across MDD patients and controls, a result that may be attributable to a reduced burden of illness in this population.
- Conclusion Although all studies were cross-sectional, our results suggest that hippocampal volume reductions generally occur after disease onset in patients with MDD.
- These findings have implications for the timing of clinical interventions aimed at reducing the impact of MDD on neuronal structure and function.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies (from PubMed type “Meta-Analysis”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19125212) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “disorder”
492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.