Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284057

Omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of youth depression and anxiety symptoms: A scoping review

Natalie M Reily 1,*, Samantha Tang 1, Ashlee Negrone 1, Daniel Z Q Gan 1, Veronica Sheanoda 1, Helen Christensen 1
Editor: Anthony A Olashore2
PMCID: PMC10118139  PMID: 37079580

Abstract

Introduction

Omega-3 supplements may be efficacious in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults, particularly as an adjunct to antidepressant medication. However, research in young people is limited. Thus, this scoping review aimed to summarise existing evidence on the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in treating depression and anxiety symptoms in young people aged 14–24. A secondary aim was to determine whether grey literature intended for the general public accurately reflects the evidence.

Method

Four databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, EmBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed) were searched from inception to 4th August 2021. Eligible peer-reviewed studies were empirical studies which examined the efficacy of omega-3 supplements in preventing/treating anxiety and/or depression symptoms in young people aged 14–24. Risk of bias was assessed for randomised studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Selected grey literature databases were also searched, with eligible sources assessed for quality. A stakeholder group including young people with lived experience of anxiety/depression, parents/carers and mental health professionals informed the research questions and data interpretation. Findings were summarised using narrative synthesis.

Results

17 empirical studies (N = 1240 participants) meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Studies varied in treatment and participant characteristics. In general, the data did not support the view that omega-3 supplements were efficacious in improving symptoms of anxiety or depression in young people aged 14–24. In contrast, most grey literature sources recommended the use of omega-3 supplements in young people.

Discussion

Evidence for efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in young people was inconclusive. More research is needed to identify potential mechanisms and moderators of the effect of omega-3 supplements on depression and anxiety symptoms in young people.

Introduction

Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental illnesses in young people, with 50% of lifetime cases of mental illness beginning before age 14, and 75% beginning before age 24 [1]. There is also significant comorbidity between depression and anxiety, and other mental health disorders [2]. Standard evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety in young people typically involve cognitive behavioural therapy, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of both [3, 4]. However, a significant minority of young people do not benefit from such treatments, leading to high rates of relapse [57]. This highlights the need to explore other treatments, which can be offered as an alternative or adjunct to standard treatments.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, found in oily fish, flax seeds, walnuts, and oils such as canola and walnut oils, have gained attention for their potential in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety both in research (for recent meta-analyses see [810]) and in the media [11]. Recognition of poor diet quality as a modifiable risk factor implicated in psychological illnesses [12, 13] has led to increasing interest in whether dietary supplements such as omega-3 supplements may be beneficial in preventing or treating common mental health disorders [14]. Over-the-counter omega-3 fish oil capsules typically contain 300mg-600mg of a combination of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) in varying ratios, as well as small amounts of other long-chain omega-3s such as docosapentaenoic acid. There is evidence to show that omega-3 fatty acids interact with a variety of physiological processes implicated in common mood disorders such as the inflammatory response and the regulation of neurotransmitters such as serotonin. Specifically, omega-3 suppresses the upregulation of several proinflammatory cytokines and eicosanoids and related lipid mediators, which may reduce chronic inflammation, a known risk factor for depression [1517]. Omega-3 supplements may also reduce depression symptoms through its upregulation of serotonin activity [18], given that serotonin pathways are implicated in mood regulation [19].

Several reviews and meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety in adults. Many have reported that omega-3 supplements are efficacious in treating depression [8, 2023], and the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry endorses it as a treatment for depression [24]. However, one recent meta-analysis found that the evidence is imprecise, and concluded that the benefits of omega-3 as a treatment for depression in adults are likely to be non-clinical in magnitude [25]. Additionally, a meta-analysis of four studies examining omega-3 supplements as an adjunct to sertraline found no effect on depressive symptoms [26] and another meta-analysis in adults aged 60 or above had mixed findings [27]. For anxiety, the efficacy of omega-3 supplements in adults has been explored to a lesser extent. However, one meta-analysis found that omega-3 supplements were effective for adults with anxiety symptoms, particularly for those with clinical diagnoses [28]. Regarding prevention of depression and anxiety, a recent meta-analysis suggested that omega-3 supplements had little or no effect on risk of developing depression or anxiety in healthy adult populations [10].

As compared to research in adults, there is substantially less research on whether omega-3 supplements can prevent and treat depression and anxiety symptoms in young people, aged 14–24. A recent meta-analysis of four studies of children aged 6–18 found no evidence of efficacy for omega-3 supplements as a stand-alone depression treatment [9]. However, this review was narrow in scope and excluded non-randomised controlled trials, studies examining anxiety, studies conducted in non-clinical populations, studies that assessed omega-3 as an adjunct rather than a primary, standalone treatment, and studies conducted in clinical samples with mental health disorders other than depression. It is of interest to examine how omega-3 supplements affect depression and anxiety symptoms in the context of other mental health disorders given the prevalence of comorbidity among people with a mental health disorder [2]. An upcoming Cochrane review with a similar scope also stands to investigate the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation for children and adolescents aged 6–19 years (for protocol see [29]).

Critically, there is a gap in knowledge as to the efficacy of omega-3 supplements in young people aged 14–24 –no systematic reviews or meta-analyses, to our knowledge, have focused specifically on this age group, despite their high risk of depression and anxiety. While there are some guidelines on the use of omega-3 in adult depression [24], there are no such guidelines for young people. The primary aim of this review was therefore to synthesise the current literature on the efficacy of omega-3 supplements for depression and anxiety symptoms in young people, including potential mechanisms of action and moderators of efficacy. A secondary aim and novel contribution to the literature was to investigate whether grey literature commentary aimed at the general public on omega-3 supplements for depression and anxiety symptoms in youth was consistent with the available evidence from scientific literature. Given the two aims, a scoping review approach was taken which also incorporated lived experience input in its design and interpretation of findings. Lived experience can aid in facilitating translatable and human-centered research in the mental health sphere [30].

Method

Protocol

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [31]; see S1 Table for the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF.IO/WFB7D).

Lived experience stakeholder consultation

A group of 11 stakeholders—consisting of four young people with lived experience of depression and/or anxiety, three parents of young people with lived experience of depression and/or anxiety, and four healthcare professionals—were recruited online through social media (e.g., Facebook) to share their insights and perspectives during two online workshops. After seeing the online advertisement, potential stakeholders filled out an expression of interest form which included questions about demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender), profession (for health professionals only) and asked about their availability to attend various potential workshop dates. Stakeholders were selected on the basis of their availability, and to ensure there was as much diversity as possible amongst the group in terms of age, gender, profession, and experience with using omega-3 or other dietary supplements. Following our organisations’ Lived Experience Policy, ethics approval was not sought given that lived experience stakeholders were engaged in an advisory capacity. However, all stakeholders provided written informed consent to attend advisory workshops. These workshops were held on Zoom (San Jose, California) and used the online collaborative tool Miro (San Jose, California). The first workshop, held on 13th July 2021, prior to database searching, sought stakeholders’ input on (i) types of information sources from which they would seek information about the efficacy of omega-3, (ii) what they were interested in understanding about omega-3 supplementation for depression and anxiety symptoms, and (iii) relevant search terms that could be used in the search strategy. The second workshop was held on 13th September 2021, after data were extracted from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified in the search. The purpose of this workshop was to obtain input on data interpretation, insights on how to use grey literature and ways of communicating study findings.

Search strategy and selection criteria

During the first workshop, stakeholders expressed interest in understanding the effectiveness of omega-3 supplements in preventing and treating depression and anxiety symptoms. Thus, we systematically searched four online academic databases for articles published from database inception to 4th August 2021: Cochrane CENTRAL EmBASE (from 1947), PsycINFO (from 1806), and PubMed (from 1996). The search comprised of three blocks of search terms organised around (i) omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, (ii) young people, and (iii) depression and anxiety (see S2 Table for search terms used in each database).

We adapted the above strategy to search the grey literature (see S3 Table). Government and health authority databases were selected from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) grey literature checklist [32]. A Google advanced search was also conducted and results of the first 10 pages were extracted.

Eligible peer-reviewed studies met the following inclusion criteria: (i) mean participant age between 14 and 24 years, (ii) administered omega-3 supplements containing DHA and EPA, (iii) measured anxiety and/or depression symptoms using validated measures, (iv) published in the English language, and (v) contained empirical data (i.e., reviews, commentaries and case studies were excluded). Both non-clinical and clinical samples were included, with no restrictions placed on psychiatric diagnoses. Studies that administered omega-3 supplements as an adjunct to treatment as usual were included, with no restrictions placed on the type of usual treatment. Correlational studies examining intake of fish and mental health outcomes or biomarkers of omega-3 in the body and mental health outcomes were excluded. Studies that altered components of diet (e.g., amount of fish consumed) rather than delivering tablets/supplements were also excluded as it was not possible to precisely measure omega-3 dosage.

Grey literature information sources were eligible if they met the following criteria: (i) described the impact of omega-3 on depression and/or anxiety in young people, and (ii) targeted potential consumers, policymakers, or health professionals. Sources that targeted academic audiences (e.g., clinical trial protocols) were excluded.

Screening

Two authors (DZQG and NMR or AN) independently screened the titles and abstracts identified through peer reviewed literature searches, and the titles only for the grey literature searches for a subset of 10% of the articles, with disagreements resolved through discussion. All remaining titles and abstracts were screened by DZQG. At the full-text stage, all articles were independently screened by two authors (DZQG, NMR, ST, AN; Cohen’s kappa = 0.58–0.87), with disagreements resolved through discussion, and a third author consulted if consensus could not be reached.

Data extraction

Data extracted from the peer-reviewed literature included: authors and year of publication, country, sample characteristics (size, age, gender, diagnosis), study type, dosage and duration of omega-3 supplementation, other treatments administered, outcomes assessed, main findings, and information on side effects and compliance. Data extracted from the grey literature included: authors, publisher, and year of publication, country, target audience, and key messages on the use of omega-3 for depression and anxiety in young people. Two authors (AN and DZQG) independently extracted and coded data sources using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2020) for all eligible peer reviewed articles and a customised Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for grey literature sources. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Corresponding authors of studies were contacted by email if more information was needed to determine eligibility.

Quality assessment

Risk of bias of included studies is not typically assessed in scoping reviews [31]. Nonetheless, we conducted quality assessment ratings of the included RCTs using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials [33]. This tool assesses possible sources of bias in RCTs, including: (1) randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment, (2) blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors, (3) incomplete outcome data, (4) measurement of outcome and (5) selective reporting. Risk of bias ratings for RCTs (see S4 Table) were independently performed by AN and DZQG, and disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Grey literature information sources were also assessed by two raters (AN and DZQG) on three criteria: comprehensiveness, accuracy of information, and the extent to which references to the peer-reviewed literature were incorporated. The criteria selected were informed by the stakeholder group and adapted from a previous rating system developed by Wade et al. [34]. Each criterion was rated Poor, Moderate, or Excellent (see S5 Table).

Synthesis of results

Significant variability in the design of included studies precluded a meta-analytic approach. A narrative synthesis approach was therefore undertaken to summarise findings in relation to each identified variable.

Results

Peer-reviewed literature

Study characteristics

The search yielded a total of 5264 articles. Following removal of duplicates and screening, 17 studies met inclusion criteria (see Fig 1), of which 13 were RCTs. Table 1 displays key characteristics of each included RCT study. All examined depression symptoms as an outcome, but only five measured anxiety symptoms. Studies varied in the daily dosage of omega-3 administered (1000mg/day-6400mg/day of EPA and DHA combined), the ratio of EPA to DHA in each dosage (50% EPA-85.7% EPA), and duration of treatment (3 weeks-12 months). Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 7), and only one study was conducted in a low- to middle-income country (Iran).

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram: Scientific literature screening process.

Fig 1

Table 1. Characteristics of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and/or anxiety (n = 13).
Study ID  Country  Sample size, n  Female participants (%) Demographic  Diagnostic criteria  Age, mean (SD)  Control  Outcome measure 
Amminger, 2010 [42] Austria 81  66.7  Adolescents with subthreshold psychotic disorder  DSM-IV  Omega-3 = 16.8 (2.4)
Placebo = 16 (1.7) 
Placebo  MADRS, GAF, PANSS, fasting erythrocyte fatty acid composition 
Amminger, 2013 [43 Austria  15  93.3  Adolescents with BPD and UHR for psychosis  DSM-IV  16.2 (2.1)  Placebo  MADRS, GAF, erythrocyte fatty acid composition 
Gabbay, 2018 [44 USA  51 48.3  Adolescents with depression of ≥6 weeks, minimum raw score of 40 for CDRS-R  DSM-IV  16.1 (2.1)  Placebo  CDRS, BDI-II, BSS 
Giles, 2015 [45] USA  72  62.5  Healthy individuals  None  Omega-3 = 20.8 (2.4)
Placebo = 20.5 (1.7) 
Placebo  POMS, STICSA, TSST EIT, MFT, IL-1β, salivary cortisol 
Ginty, 2015 [39] USA  23  78.0  Young adults with depression  BDI score >10  20.2 (1.3)  Placebo  BDI 
Jamilian, 2018 [41] Iran  40  100.0  Women with PCOS  None Omega-3 = 22.3 (4.7)
Placebo = 24.4 (4.7) 
Placebo  BDI, GHQ-28, DASS42, PPAR-γ, IL-1, GLUT-1, TNF-α, TGF-β, hirsutism 
Kiecolt-Glaser, 2011 [46] USA  68  44.1  Medical students  None 23.65 (1.9)  Placebo  CESDS, BAI, PSQI, SDPAR, side effects, fatty acid analyses, serum and stimulated IL-6 and TNF-α, SAD 
Manos, 2018 [47] USA  24  100.0  Adolescents with anorexia nervosa  DSM-V  Omega-3 = 15.0 (1.3)
Placebo = 14.4 (1.8) 
Placebo  BAI, CESDS, EAT, BMI, medication side effects 
McGorry, 2017 [48 Australia, Asia, Europe  304  54.3  Young people at UHR for psychotic disorders  DSM-IV  19.1 (4.6)  Placebo  SANS, MADRS, GFSRS, CAARMS, BPRS, YMRS, SOFS 
McNamara, 2020 [49 USA  56  80.0  Adolescents at high risk of bipolar disorder  DSM-IV, CDRS-S score ≥40  14.1 (3.0)  Placebo  CDRS-R, CGI-S, CGI-I, CGAS, YMRS, ADHD-RS, CBCL, fatty acid composition, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, side effects 
Robinson, 2019 [51] USA  50  30.0  Patients diagnosed with recent onset psychosis, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder treated with risperidone  DSM-IV  Omega-3 = 21.1 (5.3)
Placebo = 22.0 (5.3)
Placebo  SANS, BPRS, CGI-S, metabolic outcomes*, motor outcomes 
Trebatická, 2020 [40 Slovakia  60  80.0  Children with depression  ICD-10  15.7 (1.6)  Omega-6 active control  CDI, serum fatty acid levels, ratio of omega-3:omega-6 
Van der Wurff, 2020 [50] Netherlands  267 52.0  Adolescents with depression  CESDS score  Omega-3 = 14.2 (0.5)
Placebo = 14.1 (0.5) 
Placebo  CESDS, RSEQ, blood fatty acids, omega-3-index 

ADHD-RS = Attention-Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale; BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; BPRS = Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale–Anchored version; BSS = Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder; CAARMS = Comprehensive Assessment of the At-Risk Mental State; CBCL = Child Behaviour Checklist; CDI = Children’s Depression Inventory; CDRS-R = Children’s Depression Rating Scale Revised; CESDS = Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; CGAS = The Children’s Global Assessment Scale; CGI-I = Clinical Global Impression- Improvement Scale; CGI-S = Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale; DASS = Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale; DHA = docosahexaenoic acid; DSM-IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth Edition; EAT = Eating Attitudes Test; EIT = Emotional Interference Task, EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid; FHRDC = Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria; GAF = Global Assessment of Functioning; GFSRS = Global Functioning: Social and Role Scale; GLUT-1 = glucose transporter-1; GHQ-28 = General Health Questionnaire 28; ICD-10 = International Classification of Diseases; IL-1 = interleukin-1; IL-6 = interleukin 6; IL-8 = interleukin-8; MADRS = Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; MADD = Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder; MDD = Major Depressive Disorder; MFT = Morphed Faces Task, OATS = Omega-3 and Therapy Study; PANSS = Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; PCOS = polycystic ovarian syndrome; POMS = Profile of Mood States Questionnaire; PSQI = Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index; RSEQ = Rosenberg Self Esteem Questionnaire; QIDS = Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; SAD = sagittal abdominal fat; SANS = Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Hillside Clinical Trials version; SDPAR = Seven Day Physical Activity Recall; SOFS = Social and Occupational Functioning Scale; STICSA = State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety; TNF-α = tumour necrosis factor alpha; TGF-β = transformative growth factor beta; TSST = Trier Social Stress Test; UHR = Ultra High Risk; YMRS = Young Mania Rating Scale

* = metabolic outcomes included weight, body mass index, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, haemoglobin, fasting glucose

Of the 13 RCTs, six administered omega-3 supplements as an adjunct to pharmacological or psychosocial interventions. Two RCTs used a combination of omega-3 and vitamin supplements. The remaining five RCTs administered omega-3 supplements exclusively. Sample populations varied across studies with the majority in clinical samples including people with depression (n = 4), and people with, or at risk of, a mental illness other than depression or anxiety, including psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anorexia (n = 6). The remaining three studies used non-clinical samples, described as healthy individuals, women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, and medical students respectively. No RCTs were focused specifically on identifying moderators of efficacy or differentiating between potential mechanisms of action. Table 2 presents a summary of results of all included RCTs.

Table 2. Results from randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and/or anxiety (n = 13).
Study ID Omega3^ daily dose % EPA, DHA Other interventions Depression* Anxiety* Other outcomes* Side effects and adherence
Amminger 2010 [42] 1800mg + 7.6mg
vitamin E for 12 weeks 
59.3% EPA
40.7% DHA 
Antidepressants: omega-3 (12.2%); placebo (7.5%)
Benzodiazepines: omega-3 (4.9%); placebo 2.5% of placebo
No significant change in depression
(MADRS) 
Not studied  Significantly increased global functioning (GAF), and reduced positive, negative and general psychosis symptoms (PANNS) and risk of transition to psychotic disorder. Significant increase in omega-3 relative to omega-6 in treatment group. Change in this ratio in treatment group was significantly associated with functional improvement (GAF).  No significant differences in side effects between groups. Mean adherence: omega-3 (81.4%); placebo (75.4%)
Amminger 2013 [43] 1180mg + 7.6mg vitamin E for 12 weeks  59.3% EPA
40.7% DHA 
Antidepressants: omega-3 (25.0%); placebo (14.3%)
Benzodiazepines:
omega-3 (12.5%); placebo (14.3%) Counselling: M = 7 sessions (both groups)
No significant change in depression (MADRS)  Not studied  Significantly improved
PANSS negative, general, BPD and total scores compared to placebo.
No significant difference on PANSS positive subscale or in global functioning (GAF). 
No clinically relevant side effects observed, or group differences in side effects or adherence: omega-3 (77.1%); placebo (87.2%)
Gabbay 2018 [44 1200mg-3600mg in increments of 600mg per day, for 10 weeks 66.7% EPA
33.3% DHA 
None No significant difference in depression (CDRS, BDI-II), with improvements for both treatments  Not studied  No significant change in irritability, suicidality or anhedonia (BSS, BDI-II, CDRS)  No significant difference in side effects or adherence between groups 
Giles 2015 [45] 2800mg for 5 weeks  60% EPA
40% DHA 
None No significant change in depression (POMS)  No significant change in somatic or cognitive anxiety (STICSA)  No significant effect in EIT, MFT levels/scores in omega-3 as a main effect or in interaction with stress (TSST). No significant change in IL-1β, cortisol, as an interaction with stress in main effect.  No clinically relevant side effects observed. Mean adherence: omega-3 (99.6%); placebo (99.3%)
Ginty 2015 [39] 1400mg for 3 weeks  50% EPA
50% DHA 
None ↓ depression symptoms (BDI) to below clinically indicated levels: omega-3 (67.0%); placebo (20.0%), significant interaction over time. ↓ cognitive-affective symptomology over time. No difference in somatic-vegetative symptomology (BDI)  Not studied  Not studied  Not reported 
Jamilian 2018 [41 1000mg omega-3 for 12 weeks  Not reported  400IU Vitamin E daily  ↓ significant improvements in depressive symptoms (BDI)  ↓ depression/anxiety (DASS42)  ↓ general health symptoms (GHQ-28), hirsutism.
No significant difference between groups in TGF-β or salivary cortisol. ↓ serum insulin levels and HOMA-IR, IL-8 and TNF-α expression.
↑ PPAR- γ. Did not change GLUT-1 or TGF-β expression in PBMC. 
Side effects not reported, adherence of >90% capsules taken in both groups
Kiecolt-Glaser 2011 [46] 2496mg for 12 weeks  85.7% EPA
14.3% DHA 
Multivitamins permitted  No significant
difference in depression (CESDS,
average of 4 time points) 
↓ 20% reduction in anxiety symptoms compared to placebo (BAI). No significant difference in self-reported dietary intake or physical activity (SDPAR). Decreased geometric mean scores of LPS-stimulated IL-6 in Omega-3 group. No effect on serum IL-6 or TNF-α. Significant negative correlation between plasma omega-3 levels and anxiety (BAI).
Decreasing omega-6 to omega-3 ratios led to lower anxiety, stimulated IL-6 and TNF-α (estimated). Omega-3 to omega-6 ratios did not affect depressive symptoms or serum IL-6, and had a borderline significant effect on TNF-α. No effect of gender or SAD.
No significant difference in side effects or adherence (95.6% overall) between groups 
Manos 2018 [47] 3124mg for 12 weeks  67.9% EPA
19.2% DHA
12.9% other PUFAs 
87.5% of participants on SSRIs No significant change in depression (CES-D)  No significant change in anxiety (BAIT)  No significant difference in EAT score, BMI, or medication side effects. No group differences in side effects, adherence not reported
McGorry 2017 [48] 1400mg for 6 months  60% EPA
40% DHA 
100% cognitive-behavioural case management.
SSRIs, benzodiazepines permitted 
No significant change
in depression 
Not studied  No significant difference in transition to psychosis or change in psychotic symptoms (BPRS; SANS; YMRS), and global functioning (SOFAS; GFSRS)  No group differences in side effects or mean adherence: omega-3 (43.1%); placebo (41.4%)
McNamara 2020 [49] 2130mg
for 12 weeks 
60% EPA
5.3% DPA
34.6% DHA** 
None No significant group differences in depression (CDRS-R). Similar remission rates in both placebo and omega-3.  Not studied  ↑ global functioning scores (CGAS). ↓ CGI-S and CGI-I scores. No group differences in mania (YMRS), ADHD (ADHD-RS) or CBCL. No significant difference to pre-post treatment in Iipids, liver function, TSH, WBCs, RBCs or platelets. ACC creatinine and ACC choline differed significantly between groups from baseline to endpoint. Baseline ACC choline levels were inversely correlated with baseline to endpoint changes in CDRS-R scores. ACC Cho baseline to endpoint change correlated with CDRS-R scores and Omega-3 levels. No significant metabolite difference in right and left VLPFC. More muscle cramps experienced by omega-3 group. No group differences other side effects. Adherence not reported.
Robinson 2019 [51] 1140mg
omega-3 + 2mg/g tocopherol daily for 16 weeks 
64.9% EPA
35.1% DHA 
100% on risperidone, 54% on lorazepam.
Benztropine mesylate, propranolol, zolpidem or rozerem permitted 
In participants not taking lorazepam, significant tmt-by-time interaction favouring omega-3 on the depression-anxiety factor.
No significant change in depressed mood for participants not taking lorazepam (BPRS) 
↓ anxiety symptoms for participants not taking lorazepam (BPRS)  ↓ BPRS scores for participants not taking lorazepam.
No significant change in motor outcomes or metabolic outcomes. No significant difference in SANS global scores.
Adverse events greater for placebo than omega-3 group, but no analyses conducted. Mean adherence of 50% in both groups.
Trebatická 2020 [40] 2400mg for 12 weeks  57.1% EPA 42.9% DHA  Standard antidepressant therapy  ↓ depression scores (CDI) in omega-3 group, with greater improvements in DD than MADD.  Not studied  Significantly lower levels of EPA, DHA, AA + LA in depressed patients. Unchanged levels of C16+C18 in depressed patients.
Ratio of omega-6:omega-3 decreased in treatment group after 6 and 12 weeks. EPA and omega-6: omega-3 ratio correlated with severity symptoms at baseline. No significant difference between males and females or between MADD and DD. 
No serious adverse events. No significant difference in side effects between groups, >95% adherence in both groups. 
Van der Wurff 2020 [50] Low dose:
1600mg for 12 months, up to
3200mg
after 3 months
High dose:
6400mg for 12 months. 
65% EPA
35% DHA 
None No significant change in depression (CESDS)  Not studied  No significant change in self-esteem (RSEQ). Significantly higher concentrations of EPA, DPA, DHA; significantly lower concentrations of AA and ObA in treatment group. Higher omega-3 index in treatment group, however no association found with depression score.  Side effects not reported. Adherence of 56.1% across both groups.

AA = arachidonic acid; ACC = Anterior cingulate cortex; ADHD-RS = Attention-Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale; BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI (II) = Beck Depression Inventory; BPRS = Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale–Anchored version; BSS = Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder; C16 = palmitic acid; C18 = stearic acid; CAARMS = Comprehensive Assessment of the At-Risk Mental State; CBCL = Child Behaviour Checklist; CDI = Children’s Depression Inventory; CDRS-R = Children’s Depression Rating Scale Revised; CESDS = Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; CGAS = The Children’s Global Assessment Scale; CGI-I = Clinical Global Impression- Improvement Scale; CGI-S = Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale; DASS = Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale; DHA = docosahexaenoic acid; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; EAT = Eating Attitudes Test; EIT = Emotional Interference Task, EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid; FHRDC = Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria; GAF = Global Assessment of Functioning; GFSRS = Global Functioning: Social and Role Scale; GLUT-1 = glucose transporter-1; GHQ-28 = General Health Questionnaire 28; HOMA-IR = homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance; ICD-10 = International Classification of Diseases; IL-1 = interleukin-1; IL-6 = interleukin 6; IL-8 = interleukin-8; MADRS = Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; MADD = Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder; MDD = Major Depressive Disorder; MFT = Morphed Faces Task; OATS = Omega-3 and Therapy Study; ObA = osbond acid; PANSS = Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; PCOS = polycystic ovarian syndrome; POMS = Profile of Mood States Questionnaire; PSQI = Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index; PUFAs = polyunsaturated fatty acids; RBC = red blood cells; RSEQ = Rosenberg Self Esteem Questionnaire; QIDS = Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; SAD = sagittal abdominal fat; SANS = Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Hillside Clinical Trials version; SDPAR = Seven Day Physical Activity Recall; SOFS = Social and Occupational Functioning Scale; STICSA = State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety; TNF-α = tumour necrosis factor alpha; TGF-β = transformative growth factor beta; TSH = thyroid stimulating hormone; TSST = Trier Social Stress Test; UHR = Ultra High Risk; VLPFC = ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; YMRS = Young Mania Rating Scale

↑ denotes improvement; ↓ denotes decrease in symptoms

* denotes result following intervention and statistically significant according to test parameters

** percentage does not total to 100% due to rounding

^Dosage in mg refers to total long chain omega-3 fatty acids (i.e., EPA and DHA only).

In addition to the thirteen RCTs, there were two open label trials [35, 36] and one observational study [37]. Finally, one other report identified in the grey literature search was included with these additional studies because it reported on empirical data, despite not being peer-reviewed [38]; see S6 Table for non-RCT characteristics.

Efficacy of omega-3 supplements on depression

Two RCTs in young people with depression found that omega-3 supplementation led to greater reductions in depressive symptoms relative to placebo. These studies differed in dosage and duration of treatment, with one administering 1400mg/day for 3 weeks as a standalone treatment [39] and the other administering 2400mg/day for 12 weeks in addition to standard antidepressant therapy [40]. One of these studies also found that depressed participants had significantly lower baseline levels of EPA and DHA compared to healthy controls [40]. A third study in young women with polycystic ovarian syndrome found that a low dose of 1000mg/day of omega-3 co-supplemented with vitamin E led to lower levels of depressive symptoms relative to the placebo control group [41]. The remaining ten RCTs found null effects [4251]. In addition to finding no significant effect on general symptoms of depression, one study also found no effect on specific symptoms of depression, including irritability, suicidality and anhedonia [44].

The effect of omega-3 supplementation was also examined by four non-randomised controlled trials in young people with depression (n = 3) and bipolar disorder (n = 1). All four studies found omega-3 supplementation reduced depressive symptoms over time, however, none included an adequate placebo control (see S7 Table).

Overall, there is weak evidence to suggest that omega-3 supplements are effective in reducing depressive symptoms among young people diagnosed with depression or other mental illnesses, or in non-clinical populations.

Efficacy of omega-3 supplements on anxiety

Of the five RCTs that assessed anxiety outcomes, three found that omega-3 reduced anxiety symptoms, including two studies in non-clinical populations [41, 46] and one study in young people taking risperidone for recent onset psychosis, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder [51]. Dosage and duration of treatment was varied, with one administering 1000 mg/day with vitamin E for 12 weeks [41], another administering 2496 mg/day for 12 weeks as a standalone treatment [46], and the third administering 1140mg omega-3 with tocopherol in addition to patients’ standard treatments for recent onset psychosis [51]. One of these studies also found plasma omega-6 to omega-3 ratios were positively correlated with anxiety symptoms after supplementation [46]. Two studies found no effect of omega-3 supplementation on anxiety symptoms, including one in a non-clinical sample [45] and one in adolescents with anorexia nervosa [47].

Secondary outcomes (inflammation, metabolism, other mental health symptoms)

Two studies that found an effect of omega-3 supplementation on anxiety symptoms [46], or both anxiety and depression symptoms [41] also found corresponding changes in inflammatory biomarkers. Specifically, Kiecolt-Glaser et al. [46] found that omega-3 supplementation reduced stimulated interleukin-6 levels (IL-6), but not serum IL-6 levels or tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) production, and Jamilian and colleagues [41] found that omega-3 supplementation downregulated interleukin-8, TNF-α and serum insulin, and upregulated peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor expression. A third study, which reported a reduction in anxiety symptoms with omega-3 supplementation, found no between-group differences in metabolic outcomes including weight, BMI, cholesterol, triglycerides, haemoglobin levels, and fasting glucose [51].

Other outcomes assessed included psychosis-related symptoms [42, 43, 48, 51], general psychological distress [41], global functioning [42, 48], self-esteem [50], and neural activity [49]. These secondary outcomes are reported in Table 2.

Side effects and adherence to intervention

There was little evidence of side effects attributable to omega-3 supplementation. One study reported that participants receiving omega-3 supplements were more likely to experience muscle cramps compared to placebo [49], whereas another observed a greater number of adverse events in the placebo group, but no statistical analyses were performed [51]. The remaining studies either found no differences in side effects between omega-3 and placebo groups (n = 8) or did not report on side effects (n = 3). Adherence to the intervention also did not differ significantly between omega-3 and placebo conditions.

Quality assessment

Only two of the RCTs had low risk of bias across all 5 domains (see S3 Table). Selective reporting of results was identified to be the largest source of possible bias, with 9 studies (69.2%) not reporting sufficient information (such as a prospectively published trial protocol) to rule out bias in this domain. The second most common source of potential bias was associated with the randomisation process, with 6 studies (46.2%) not reporting sufficient detail on randomisation sequence generation or allocation concealment. Risk of bias relating to the other domains was mostly low.

Grey literature

Source characteristics

Twelve grey literature sources met inclusion criteria, including seven online articles, three blogs, one fact sheet and one practice guideline, all published from 2005–2021 (see Fig 2). The majority were from the United States (n = 7). See Table 3 for grey literature source characteristics.

Fig 2. PRISMA flow diagram: Grey literature screening process.

Fig 2

Table 3. Summary of grey literature reporting on the effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and/or anxiety (n = 12).
Author, publisher, year  URL  Type  Country  Target audience  Stance on omega-3  Key message  Side effects 
Amen Clinics, 2020 [60] https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/new-evience-on-omega-3s-for-behavioral-problems-in-children/  Online article  United States  General public  Recommends  Research on the effect of omega-3 on depression in children is “sparse but encouraging”. Evidence says supplementation with omega-3 improves quality of life and mental status in children with emotional and behavioural issues. Low levels of EPA and DHA linked to mind disorders such as depression. Recommended dose is 800mg for every 40lb body weight, and ratio of 60/40 EPA:DHA. More research on omega-3 in adults than in children. Not reported 
Bartholomew, Nutri Advanced, 2021 [52] https://www.nutriadvanced.co.uk/news/top-10-reasons-to-give-your-kids-omega-3/  Blog  United Kingdom  General public  Recommends  Omega-3 is effective in mitigating symptoms of depression in children and youth. Two studies were referenced that found that omega-3 can improve depression in children by improving blood flow to brain. One study mentioned dose as 60mg per day of EPA and 1560mg DHA. Not reported 
British Diet Association, 2020 [59 https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=diet-behaviour-and-learning-children  Fact sheet  United Kingdom  General public  Recommends  There is some evidence omega-3 can improve mood and reduced anxiety in people with ADHD and autism, mostly based on adult studies. Consumption of food rich in omega-3 is recommended for children.  Not reported 
Headspace, 2019 [61 https://headspace.org.au/blog/the-best-foods-for-mental-health/  Blog  Australia  General public  Recommends  DHA can help boost mood, improve feelings of depression, and reduce anxiety. Omega-3 in fish can help circulate serotonin and dopamine.  Not reported 
Heyes, UNICEF, 2015 [62] https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1149-the-adolescent-brain-vulnerability-and-opportunity.html  Online article  Italy  Policymakers, government  Neutral  Studies are being conducted currently to evaluate whether omega-3 supplementation during adolescence may alleviate symptoms of emotional disorders. More generally, good physical health has been linked to positive mental health in adolescence (and the reverse).  Not reported 
Kemper, Contemporary Pediatrics, 2005 [54 https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/does-fish-oil-help-adhd  Blog  United States  Healthcare professionals  Recommends  EPA and DHA appear to be helpful for mental health problems such as depression, which is often comorbid with ADHD. Trials are needed for adolescents with ADHD.  Not reported 
Link, Healthline, 2019 [53] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/omega-3-for-kids  Online article  United States  General public  Recommends  Studies show that omega-3 fatty acids may improve brain function and prevent depression and mood disorders in children. Recommended dosage ranged from 0.5g to 1.6g, varying by age and sex. Bad breath, unpleasant aftertaste, gastrointestinal disturbances* 
Miller, Hey Sigmund, 2017 [55] https://www.heysigmund.com/resilience-anxiety-and-nutrition/  Online article  Australia  General public  Recommends  More research has examined the effect of omega-3 on mood and brain health than any other nutrient. Oily fish will help calm anxiety and many other mental health problems by helping to feed the brain.  Not reported 
Newport Academy, 2017 [57] https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/empowering-teens/food-mood-nutrition-teen-mental-health/  Online article  United States  General public  Recommends  Omega-3 may improve quality of life and mental status in children with emotional and behavioural issues. Links depression and deficiencies in particular nutrients. Omega-3 plays a role in affecting serotonin and dopamine. Significant improvement in teen depression and nutrition if omega-3 and amino acids are incorporated. Not reported 
Pediatric partners, unknown date [58] https://pediatricpartnerskc.com/Education/Nutrition/OMEGA-3-FATTY-ACIDS-FISH-AND-NUT-OILS  Online article  United States  General public  Recommends  Fish oil has benefits for many aspects of health (high blood pressure, high triglycerides, infant brain and eye development, possibly preventing cancers), and can be used to treat mood and behavioural disorders (ADHD and depression). No standard dosing exists, but many healthcare professionals recommend 1000mg EPA+DHA for children and 2000mg for an adult (no source). Gastrointestinal disturbances*, increased bleeding, vitamin E deficiency, fishy aftertaste 
Sparks, Kaiser Permanente, 2021 [56] https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/static/pdf/public/guidelines/depression.pdf  Practice guidelines  United States  Healthcare professionals  Recommends  Omega-3 fatty acids are possible adjunctive treatment options for patients with depression, as there is evidence they are more effective than placebo. There is not enough research to recommend omega-3 over antidepressants. Described mixed findings from the literature as to whether omega-3 is more effective as an adjunct or main therapy. Recommended dose was 1-2g daily (morning and evening doses).  Not reported 
Weatherby, Vital Choice, 2014 [63] https://www.vitalchoice.com/article/omega-3s-linked-to-lower-teen-anxiety  Online article  United States  General public  Neutral  Research shows omega-3 may ameliorate anxiety in youth, although strong conclusions cannot be drawn at this point. Increased omega-3 intake is associated with increased levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor, which may improve brain plasticity and help regulate mood.  Not reported 

ADHD = Attention-Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder; DHA = docosahexaenoic acid EPA = eicosapentaenoic acids.

*Gastrointestinal disturbances include heartburn, indigestion, nausea and diarrhoea.

Key messages

As with the peer-reviewed literature, most grey literature discussed the effect of omega-3 on depression as opposed to anxiety. However contrary to peer-reviewed literature, most sources recommended omega-3 to alleviate depression or anxiety symptoms (83%). Specifically, seven websites recommended omega-3 for low mood or depression [5258], one for anxiety [59], and two for both anxiety and depression ([60, 61]. The remaining two sources were neutral [62, 63], with none advising against the use of omega-3.

Sources that recommended a specific dosage of omega-3 supplements recommended between 500-2000mg/day with a high ratio of EPA to DHA [52, 56, 60]. However, other sources advised for omega-3 to be obtained through diet rather than in supplement form [55, 59, 61]. Most sources mentioned benefits of omega-3 intake for other aspects of health, such as cognitive ability [53, 61]. Thus, promotion of omega-3 in grey literature often centered around omega-3 as a part of a healthy diet, which was stated to indirectly contribute to better mental health. Side effects of supplementation reported in grey literature were predominately similar to those noted in peer-reviewed literature, including fishy aftertaste, gastrointestinal disturbances [53] and increased risk of bleeding [54, 58].

Quality assessment

Quality assessment of grey literature sources revealed variation in accuracy, comprehensiveness, and extent to which peer-reviewed literature was referenced (see S4 Table). Reference to peer reviewed literature was the highest scoring domain, with 58% of grey literature sources rated as excellent. However, despite many sources referencing peer reviewed literature, only 17% of sources were rated as excellent in accuracy. The majority of remaining sources unreservedly promoted the use of omega-3 supplements for as a treatment for depression and anxiety in young people, failing to acknowledge the lack of consistent evidence for its effectiveness. In terms of comprehensiveness, 33% of sources had an excellent amount of detail, including detail on contexts in which omega-3 was found to be effective, and potential mechanisms for its efficacy. However, 50% of sources provided a poor level of detail.

Discussion

This scoping review was the first to summarise the existing evidence on the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in treating depression and anxiety symptoms in young people aged 14–24. We found little evidence to support the use of omega-3 supplements in reducing depressive symptoms in young people, consistent with one previous meta-analysis which found that omega-3 supplements were not effective in treating depression among children aged 6–18 [9]. We also found some evidence that omega-3 supplements may reduce symptoms of anxiety, however, none of the included studies were conducted in populations with clinically diagnosed anxiety or depression. Studies were highly heterogenous in intervention characteristics (e.g., dosage) and participant characteristics (e.g., diagnosis) and there was no evidence to suggest that any such characteristics moderated the efficacy of omega-3 supplements. None of the included studies systematically examined mechanisms of action for omega-3, but two studies found evidence to suggest that omega-3 reduced inflammatory biomarkers which may be implicated in reduction of anxiety and depression symptoms, at least in populations without diagnosed mental illness [41, 46]. Our review also suggests that consumption of omega-3 supplements is not associated with significant side effects in young people. Compared with lack of evidence for supplement efficacy in peer-reviewed literature, grey literature information sources generally supported the use of omega-3 in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in young people. However, these sources differed in whether they recommended omega-3 be obtained through the diet or with the use of supplements, and they typically recommended lower dosages than were used in randomised controlled trials.

Potential contextual moderators of omega-3 efficacy

There was little evidence to suggest that contextual variables such as baseline symptom severity, treatment characteristics (e.g., dosage, ratio of EPA to DHA, duration), whether omega-3 was administered alongside other treatments, or participant characteristics (e.g., sex, diagnosis) moderated the efficacy of omega-3 supplements. Moreover, no included studies were specifically designed to identify moderators of efficacy. However, research conducted among adults suggests that omega-3 may be more effective when administered as an adjunct to antidepressant medication, rather than as a standalone treatment [14, 21] and when EPA is administered at a higher dose [22].

With regard to treatment dosage and duration, the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research Practice [24] recommends a daily dose of 1000-2000mg of omega-3 for at least 8 weeks. Based on a cut-off of 2000mg/day to distinguish between high and low doses [64], approximately half of the included RCTs in the current review administered a ‘high’ dose of omega-3 (> 2000mg/day [40, 4447, 49, 50]) while the other half administered a ‘low’ dose (< 2000mg/day [39, 4143, 48, 51]). We found no difference between high-dose and low-dose studies in terms of treatment efficacy. Furthermore, two studies that compared the efficacy of different doses did not find significant effects [36, 50]. There was also a wide range of treatment durations in the included studies. Notably, however, only two of the RCTs had a treatment duration of six months or longer [48, 50]. This is despite evidence showing that six months is the minimum period needed to ensure equilibration of omega-3 throughout the body [65]. As such, the absence of a clear effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and anxiety symptoms may be due to an insufficient amount of time allowed for omega-3 supplements to reduce symptoms. Future studies should further investigate whether a certain dosage and duration of omega-3 supplementation is optimal to treat symptoms of depression and anxiety in young people.

There are a number of other factors not assessed in this review that may moderate efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in depression and anxiety. Previous research in adults with depression has found that omega-3 supplementation might be most effective for people with high red blood cell levels of EPA and DHA at baseline [66], however no included studies assessed this. Baseline ratios of omega-3 to omega-6 may also be relevant to risk of depression and anxiety due to their differing effects on inflammation [67, 68]. Specifically, omega-3 acids produce eicosanoids and related substances which suppress inflammation, while omega-6 acids produce eicosanoids and related substances that stimulate inflammation [69]. In this review, one study found that higher omega-3 to omega-6 ratios were associated with lower levels of anxiety- and depression-related symptoms [46]. As such, it may be of interest for future studies to examine how the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in treating depression and/or anxiety symptoms may be moderated by baseline omega-3 levels and baseline ratio of omega-3 to omega-6.

As mentioned earlier, some previous meta-analyses have found that omega-3 supplements may reduce symptoms of both depression [8, 2023] and anxiety [28] in adult populations, albeit the evidence is not of a sufficiently high quality [25]. Our findings raise the question of whether omega-3 supplementation may be even less effective for young people. Indeed, a recent longitudinal study found an association between baseline levels of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and symptoms of depression and anxiety in a 24-year-old cohort, but not for a 17-year-old cohort [70]. Age-dependent effects of omega-3 may relate to changes in the brain that occur during adolescence and young adulthood [71]. For instance, research in adult populations suggests that omega-3 supplements may be particularly effective as an adjunct to antidepressant treatment such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) given that they also interact with serotonin receptors [14, 21]. However, adolescent brain development is characterised by lower expression of serotonin transporters, which may limit the potential adjunctive effect of omega-3 administered with SSRIs [72]. Longitudinal prospective studies that examine the effect of omega-3 over time are needed to better understand how age may moderate efficacy.

Mismatch between peer-reviewed and grey literature

There was a clear discrepancy between the peer-reviewed and grey literature in the main message communicated about the efficacy of omega-3 in mitigating anxiety and depression among young people. Specifically, the grey literature overwhelmingly recommended the use of omega-3 for treating depression and anxiety, whereas the peer-reviewed literature reported scant evidence in support of this claim. Based on our ratings, grey literature sources that substantiated their claims with reference to peer-reviewed studies presented content that was more closely aligned with the scientific literature. To our knowledge, no other reviews on omega-3 supplements have assessed grey literature sources. However, our findings are consistent with a recent systematic review, which found that online health information intended for public consumption is generally poorly aligned with scientific evidence [73].

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current scoping review included the broad scope, the use of a rigorous systematic search strategy, and the thorough assessment of the quality of eligible RCTs and grey literature sources. The assessment of whether grey literature sources aimed at the general public accurately reflected the peer reviewed evidence is an important novel contribution of this review. The review was also enhanced by the involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders comprising of young people with lived experience of anxiety or depression, parents and caregivers, and healthcare professionals, which ensured that the review scope addressed research questions relevant to both lay and academic audiences.

The current review also had a several limitations. Only five studies in the review investigated anxiety outcomes, but none were in clinically anxious populations, and all but two RCTs had risk of bias from at least one source. The heterogeneity of studies included in the review made it difficult to determine whether participant characteristics (e.g., sex, diagnosis) or intervention characteristics (e.g., dosage and duration of treatment, adjunctive vs. standalone treatment) influenced the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation. Furthermore, although several RCTs in this review permitted continuation of current antidepressant medications and therapeutic treatments, they did not assess whether the type of treatment-as-usual that was combined with omega-3 was a moderator of the effect. Additionally, no studies systematically compared the effect of omega-3 supplements as a standalone treatment to their effect as an adjunct to other treatments. Finally, with the exception of one study, all studies included in this review were conducted in high income countries, and all stakeholders were Australian, which may limit the generalisability of findings to other populations.

Implications for future research and policy

The findings of the current review have implications for clinical practice. Current practice guidelines relating to omega-3 supplements recommend a higher ratio of EPA to DHA and daily dosages that exceed 1000mg [24, 64]. However, these guidelines are not age-specific. Our review suggests that further research on the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation is warranted before it is recommended as a treatment for depression and anxiety symptoms in young people. In particular, it would be important for future studies to test whether omega-3 supplementation over a longer duration improves symptoms, given the duration of treatment in many studies included in this review may have been insufficient. Furthermore, trials should investigate different adjunct treatments or potential moderators to identify contexts under which omega-3 supplements are most effective to inform practitioners, and practice guidelines.

With the inclusion of grey literature, this scoping review also identified that online sources often did not appropriately represent the evidence of efficacy of omega-3 supplements for depression and anxiety in young people. Therefore, improving the accuracy and accessibility of evidence-based online health information about the effectiveness of current and emerging potential treatments for common mental illness should be a priority for policymakers. This is critical given that information from such sources can significantly impact help-seeking related beliefs and behaviours [73]. Concurrently, public health resources should be allocated to improve the health literacy of the general public including providing education to the general public on how they can ascertain the credibility of online health information.

Conclusion

This scoping review of academic and grey literature is the first to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in treating symptoms of depression and anxiety in young people. We found limited evidence that omega-3 supplementation reduces symptoms of depression, and some evidence supporting the efficacy of omega-3 in reducing symptoms of anxiety. No clear patterns emerged regarding whether the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation was moderated by such factors as dosage, ratio of EPA to DHA, participant characteristics and treatment duration. Additionally, the heterogeneity in sample demographics made moderators difficult to identify. In contrast to peer-reviewed literature, most grey literature sources recommended omega-3 supplements to improve symptoms of anxiety and depression. Despite most grey literature sources including reference to peer-reviewed literature, few accurately described the evidence. Further research is needed to investigate specific mechanisms that might underlie omega-3 supplementation and to systematically test how factors such as dosage, duration of treatment, age, and clinical characteristics may moderate its effectiveness.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Preferred reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Search terms for academic databases.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Grey literature search terms and databases.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Cochrane risk of bias ratings for randomised controlled trials (n = 13).

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Ratings of grey literature according to comprehensiveness, accuracy of information, and reference to peer-reviewed literature (n = 12).

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Characteristics of included non-randomised controlled trials (n = 4).

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Findings from non-randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and/or anxiety (n = 4).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the key contributions made by our stakeholder advisory group in informing the scope and approach taken in this review. The valuable insights provided by this group of young people with lived experience, parents and carers, and health professionals shaped the search strategy and interpretation of the results of the review. We would also like to acknowledge Ms Helen Glover (Enlightened Consultants) for her expert facilitation of the stakeholder workshops.

Data Availability

Given that this is a systematic and scoping review, there is no primary data associated with this work. All included academic articles and grey literature sources are cited in the manuscript. All data extracted in the review process and during quality assessment is presented within the manuscript or supplementary materials.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by a Wellcome Trust Mental Health Priority Area “Active Ingredients” 2021 commission awarded to NMR at Black Dog Institute. HC is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (1155614). https://wellcome.org/grant-funding https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):593–602. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Teesson M, Slade T, Mills K. Comorbidity in Australia: Findings of the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2009;43(7):606–14. doi: 10.1080/00048670902970908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhou X, Teng T, Zhang Y, Del Giovane C, Furukawa TA, Weisz JR, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(7):581–601. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhou X, Zhang Y, Furukawa TA, Cuijpers P, Pu J, Weisz JR, et al. Different types and acceptability of psychotherapies for acute anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: A network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(1):41–50. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cuijpers P, Cristea IA, Karyotaki E, Reijnders M, Huibers MJH. How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence. World Psychiatry. 2016;15(3):245–58. doi: 10.1002/wps.20346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Locher C, Koechlin H, Zion SR, Werner C, Pine DS, Kirsch I, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and placebo for common psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(10):1011–20. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Ng MY, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Vaughn-Coaxum R, et al. What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: A multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am Psychol. 2017;72(2):79–117. doi: 10.1037/a0040360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liao Y, Xie B, Zhang H, He Q, Guo L, Subramanieapillai M, et al. Efficacy of omega-3 PUFAs in depression: A meta-analysis. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):190. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0515-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhang L, Liu H, Kuang L, Meng H, Zhou X. Omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2019;13:36. doi: 10.1186/s13034-019-0296-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Deane KHO, Jimoh OF, Biswas P, O’Brien A, Hanson S, Abdelhamid AS, et al. Omega-3 and polyunsaturated fat for prevention of depression and anxiety symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry. 2021;218(3):135–42. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2019.234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.OmegaQuant. New research highlights omega-3 as top mental health nutrients… and not a moment too soon: OmegaQuant; 2019. Available from: https://omegaquant.com/new-research-highlights-omega-3-as-top-mental-health-nutrients-and-not-a-moment-too-soon/. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li Y, Lv MR, Wei YJ, Sun L, Zhang JX, Zhang HG, et al. Dietary patterns and depression risk: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2017;253:373–82. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.04.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.O’Neil A, Quirk SE, Housden S, Brennan SL, Williams LJ, Pasco JA, et al. Relationship between diet and mental health in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(10):e31–e42. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Firth J, Teasdale SB, Allott K, Siskind D, Marx W, Cotter J, et al. The efficacy and safety of nutrient supplements in the treatment of mental disorders: A meta-review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. World Psychiatry. 2019;18(3):308–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Berk M, Williams LJ, Jacka FN, O’Neil A, Pasco JA, Moylan S, et al. So depression is an inflammatory disease, but where does the inflammation come from? BMC Medicine. 2013;11(1):200. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Simopoulos AP. Omega-3 fatty acids in inflammation and autoimmune diseases. J Am Coll Nutr. 2002;21(6):495–505. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2002.10719248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Logan AC. Neurobehavioral aspects of omega-3 fatty acids: possible mechanisms and therapeutic value in major depression. Altern Med Rev. 2003;8(4):410–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Patrick RP, Ames BN. Vitamin D and the omega-3 fatty acids control serotonin synthesis and action, part 2: relevance for ADHD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and impulsive behavior. FASEB J. 2015;29(6):2207–22. doi: 10.1096/fj.14-268342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cowen PJ, Browning M. What has serotonin to do with depression? World Psychiatry. 2015;14(2):158–60. doi: 10.1002/wps.20229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bae JH, Kim G. Systematic review and meta-analysis of omega-3-fatty acids in elderly patients with depression. Nutr Res. 2018;50:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2017.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Grosso G, Pajak A, Marventano S, Castellano S, Galvano F, Bucolo C, et al. Role of omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of depressive disorders: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mocking RJ, Harmsen I, Assies J, Koeter MW, Ruhé HG, Schene AH. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation for major depressive disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2016;6(3):e756. doi: 10.1038/tp.2016.29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schefft C, Kilarski LL, Bschor T, Köhler S. Efficacy of adding nutritional supplements in unipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2017;27(11):1090–109. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2017.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Guu T-W, Mischoulon D, Sarris J, Hibbeln J, Robert, Hamazaki K, et al. International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research Practice Guidelines for Omega-3 Fatty Acids in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder. Psychother Psychosom. 2019;88(5):263–73. doi: 10.1159/000502652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Appleton KM, Voyias PD, Sallis HM, Dawson S, Ness AR, Churchill R, et al. Omega‐3 fatty acids for depression in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021(11). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004692.pub5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chambergo-Michilot D, Brañez-Condorena A, Falvy-Bockos I, Pacheco-Mendoza J, Benites-Zapata VA. Efficacy of omega-3 supplementation on sertraline continuous therapy to reduce depression or anxiety symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2021;296:113652. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bai Z-G, Bo A, Wu S-J, Gai Q-Y, Chi I. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and reduction of depressive symptoms in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2018;241:241–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.07.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Su KP, Tseng PT, Lin PY, Okubo R, Chen TY, Chen YW, et al. Association of use of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with changes in severity of anxiety symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(5):e182327. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Campisi SC, Zasowski C, Shah S, Bradley-Ridout G, Szatmari P, Korczak D. Omega‐3 fatty acid supplementation for depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021(6). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Roennfeldt H, Byrne L. Skin in the game: The professionalization of lived experience roles in mental health. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2021;30(S1):1445–55. doi: 10.1111/inm.12898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.CADTH. Grey matters: A practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Ottawa; 2018.
  • 33.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. 2019;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wade TD, Egan SJ, Wleklinski M, O’Brien A, Fitzallen G, Shafran R. A realist synthesis of websites containing content on perfectionism: Are the descriptions and advice empirically supported? BMC Psychology. 2021;9(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00620-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Clayton EH, Hanstock TL, Hirneth SJ, Kable CJ, Garg ML, Hazell PL. Reduced mania and depression in juvenile bipolar disorder associated with long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(8):1037–40. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2008.81 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.McNamara RK, Strimpfel J, Jandacek R, Rider T, Tso P, Welge JA, et al. Detection and treatment of long-chain omega-3 fatty acid deficiency in adolescents with SSRI-resistant Major Depressive Disorder. PharmaNutrition. 2014;2(2):38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.phanu.2014.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fristad MA, Roley-Roberts ME, Black SR, Arnold LE. Moody kids years later: Long-term outcomes of youth from the Omega-3 and therapy (OATS) studies. J Affect Disord. 2021;281:24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Amminger GP. The Fish Oil Youth Depression Pilot Study. A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled treatment trial (6515:10659). 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ginty AT, Conklin SM. Short-term supplementation of acute long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may alter depression status and decrease symptomology among young adults with depression: A preliminary randomized and placebo controlled trial. Psychiatry Res. 2015;229(1–2):485–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Trebatická J, Hradečná Z, Surovcová A, Katrenčíková B, Gushina I, Waczulíková I, et al. Omega-3 fatty-acids modulate symptoms of depressive disorder, serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6/omega-3 ratio in children. A randomized, double-blind and controlled trial. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:112911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jamilian M, Shojaei A, Samimi M, Afshar Ebrahimi F, Aghadavod E, Karamali M, et al. The effects of omega-3 and vitamin E co-supplementation on parameters of mental health and gene expression related to insulin and inflammation in subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Affect Disord. 2018;229:41–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Amminger GP, Schäfer MR, Papageorgiou K, Klier CM, Cotton SM, Harrigan SM, et al. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids for indicated prevention of psychotic disorders: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(2):146–54. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amminger GP, Chanen AM, Ohmann S, Klier CM, Mossaheb N, Bechdolf A, et al. Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in adolescents with borderline personality disorder and ultra-high risk criteria for psychosis: a post hoc subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Can J Psychiatry. 2013;58(7):402–8. doi: 10.1177/070674371305800705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gabbay V, Freed RD, Alonso CM, Senger S, Stadterman J, Davison BA, et al. A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Fatty Acids as a Monotherapy for Adolescent Depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2018;79(4):17m11596. doi: 10.4088/JCP.17m11596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Giles GE, Mahoney CR, Urry HL, Brunyé TT, Taylor HA, Kanarek RB. Omega-3 fatty acids and stress-induced changes to mood and cognition in healthy individuals. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2015;132:10–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2015.02.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Belury MA, Andridge R, Malarkey WB, Glaser R. Omega-3 supplementation lowers inflammation and anxiety in medical students: a randomized controlled trial. Brain Behav Immun. 2011;25(8):1725–34. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2011.07.229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Manos BE, Bravender TD, Harrison TM, Lange HLH, Cottrill CB, Abdel-Rasoul M, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for the treatment of anxiety in adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2018;51(12):1367–72. doi: 10.1002/eat.22964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.McGorry PD, Nelson B, Markulev C, Yuen HP, Schäfer MR, Mossaheb N, et al. Effect of ω-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Young People at Ultrahigh Risk for Psychotic Disorders: The NEURAPRO Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(1):19–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.McNamara RK, Strawn JR, Tallman MJ, Welge JA, Patino LR, Blom TJ, et al. Effects of fish oil monotherapy on depression and prefrontal neurochemistry in adolescents at high risk for Bipolar I Disorder: A 12-week placebo-controlled proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy trial. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2020;30(5):293–305. doi: 10.1089/cap.2019.0124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.van der Wurff ISM, von Schacky C, Bergeland T, Leontjevas R, Zeegers MP, Kirschner PA, et al. Effect of one year krill oil supplementation on depressive symptoms and self-esteem of Dutch adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2020;163:102208. doi: 10.1016/j.plefa.2020.102208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Robinson DG, Gallego JA, John M, Hanna LA, Zhang JP, Birnbaum ML, et al. A potential role for adjunctive omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids for depression and anxiety symptoms in recent onset psychosis: Results from a 16 week randomized placebo-controlled trial for participants concurrently treated with risperidone. Schizophr Res. 2019;204:295–303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bartholomew R. Top 10 Reasons to Give Your Kids Omega-3: Nutri Advanced; 2021. updated June 10. Available from: https://www.nutriadvanced.co.uk/news/top-10-reasons-to-give-your-kids-omega-3/. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Link R. Should Kids Take Omega-3 Supplements?: Healthline; 2019. updated October 9. Available from: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/omega-3-for-kids. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kemper KJ. Does fish oil help with ADHD?: Contemporary Pediatrics; 2005. updated October 1. Available from: https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/does-fish-oil-help-adhd. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Miller L. Managing Anxiety and Building Resilience in Kids: How Nutrition Can Help: Hey Sigmund; 2017. Available from: https://www.heysigmund.com/resilience-anxiety-and-nutrition/ [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sparks A, Cohen A., Adjao S., Adekola L., Chan J., Freidman B., et al. Adult & Adolescent Depression Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Guideline: Kaiser Permanente; 2021. updated April. Available from: https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/static/pdf/public/guidelines/depression.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Newport Academy. Food and Mood: Teen Nutrition and Mental Health: Newport Academy; 2017. updated May 10. Available from: https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/empowering-teens/food-mood-nutrition-teen-mental-health/. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pediatric Partners. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Fish and Nut Oils: Pediatric Partners; n.d. Available from: https://pediatricpartnerskc.com/Education/Nutrition/OMEGA-3-FATTY-ACIDS-FISH-AND-NUT-OILS.
  • 59.British Diet Association. Food Fact Sheet: Diet, behaviour and learning in children: British Diet Association; 2020. Available from: https://www.bda.uk.com/resourceDetail/printPdf/?resource=diet-behaviour-and-learning-children. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Amen Clinics. New Evidence on Omega-3s for Behavioral Problems in Children: Amen Clinics; 2020. updated October 12. Available from: https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/new-evidence-on-omega-3s-for-behavioral-problems-in-children/. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Headspace. The best foods for mental health: Headspace; 2019. updated April 24. Available from: https://headspace.org.au/blog/the-best-foods-for-mental-health/ [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Heyes SB, Hiu CF. The adolescent brain: vulnerability and opportunity: UNICEF; 2015. updated April 20. Available from: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1149-the-adolescent-brain-vulnerability-and-opportunity.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Weatherby C. Omega-3s Linked to Lower Teen Anxiety: Vital Choice; 2014. [updated April 5. Available from: https://www.vitalchoice.com/article/omega-3s-linked-to-lower-teen-anxiety [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Luo X-D, Feng J-S, Yang Z, Huang Q-T, Yang B, Su K-P, et al. High-dose omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation might be more superior than low-dose for major depressive disorder in early therapy period: A network meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Browning LM, Walker CG, Mander AP, West AL, Madden J, Gambell JM, et al. Incorporation of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids into lipid pools when given as supplements providing doses equivalent to typical intakes of oily fish. A J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(4):748–58. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.041343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Carney RM, Steinmeyer BC, Freedland KE, Rubin EH, Rich MW, Harris WS. Baseline blood levels of omega-3 and depression remission: a secondary analysis of data from a placebo-controlled trial of omega-3 supplements. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016;77(2). doi: 10.4088/JCP.14m09660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.DiNicolantonio JJ O ’Keefe JH. Importance of maintaining a low omega–6/omega–3 ratio for reducing inflammation. Open Heart. 2018;5(2):e000946. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Berger ME, Smesny S, Kim SW, Davey CG, Rice S, Sarnyai Z, et al. Omega-6 to omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid ratio and subsequent mood disorders in young people with at-risk mental states: a 7-year longitudinal study. Transl Psychiatry. 2017;7(8):e1220–e. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Schmitz G, Ecker J. The opposing effects of n−3 and n−6 fatty acids. Prog Lipid Res. 2008;47(2):147–55. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2007.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mongan D, Healy C, Jones HJ, Zammit S, Cannon M, Cotter DR. Plasma polyunsaturated fatty acids and mental disorders in adolescence and early adulthood: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations in a general population cohort. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):321. doi: 10.1038/s41398-021-01425-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Johnson SB, Blum RW, Giedd JN. Adolescent maturity and the brain: the promise and pitfalls of neuroscience research in adolescent health policy. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3):216–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.05.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Murphy SE, Capitão LP, Giles SLC, Cowen PJ, Stringaris A, Harmer CJ. The knowns and unknowns of SSRI treatment in young people with depression and anxiety: efficacy, predictors, and mechanisms of action. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(9):824–35. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00154-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, et al. Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J of Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1884–91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Anthony A Olashore

30 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-32790

Omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of youth depression and anxiety symptoms: A scoping review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reily,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Anthony A. Olashore, MBCHB, FWACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Minor corrections are needed at this stage; however, you should give more information regarding the non-clinical sample. Based on some of the comments raised in the introduction and the method session, it would be good to revise the discussion. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is technically sound, with methodology appropriate to the study objectives. The data presented are clearly in support of the conclusions.

The narrative review was comprehensive and detailed enough with clear criteria for the selection of the articles.

The reviewed studies were specified with all relevant data available for scrutiny.

The writing style and language was easy to read and understand.

Reviewer #2: General Comments

The subject-matter raised in this paper is quite relevant to the psychopharmacology of mood and anxiety disorders with particular reference to a segment of the patient population from which data regarding the outcomes on the use of omega-3 as treatment are scarce. It should be of interest to the international audience of the journal.

Title

The title is succinct and focuses on depression and anxiety “symptoms” which the review tries to address. However, this broad perspective of “symptoms” rather than “disorders” also particularly leads to a conflation of issues/findings which creates some confusion as to the research questions being investigated.

Abstract

The abstract does have reasonably sufficient information.

Introduction

The introduction appears generally well-written. The language is easy to follow. However, the authors stated in their opening statement as follows: “Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental illnesses in young people, with 50% of lifetime cases of mental illness beginning before age 14, and 75% beginning before age 24 (1).” This seems to suggest that the emphasis of the review is on the “disorders” rather than the “symptoms” while the entire review does the opposite. The import of this conflation is that the patient samples required to examine the research questions will be different in order to avoid undue confounding in results interpretation – depressive symptoms in different disorders may not necessarily meet the criteria for the clinical diagnosis of depressive disorder. The introduction has to focus more specifically on depressive symptoms in different disorders. Furthermore, the scope of the primary research question appears too broad for the pooling of data as you have in a systematic or scoping review. The authors state the primary aim as follows: “The primary aim of this review was therefore to synthesise the current literature on the efficacy of omega-3 supplements for depression and anxiety in young people, including potential mechanisms of action and moderators of efficacy." Very few studies were available (only 2) who reported on inflammatory changes as potential mechanisms of action and no specific studies were included that were focused on “moderators” of efficacy.

Methods

(i) “Sample populations varied across studies, and included non-clinical samples (n = 3), people with depression (n = 4), and people with, or at risk of, a mental illness other than depression or anxiety, including psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anorexia (n = 6).”

a. Further information is required regarding the “non-clinical samples”.

b. The authors should be clear on why they chose to include samples that were being treated for other mental health conditions – this increases the risk of confounding in the data interpretation. The authors should address this from the perspective or “symptomatic treatment” or treatment of “comorbidity” versus the treatment of a specific clinical disorder alone. I note that the authors indicated that this was a weakness in an earlier meta-analysis (Zhang L, Liu H, Kuang L, Meng H, Zhou X. Omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of 527 depressive disorders in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo528 controlled trials. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2019;13:36). On the contrary, I think it is a strength in systematic reviews/meta-analysis to make the research question as specific as possible.

(ii) As stated above, very few studies were available (only 2) who reported on inflammatory changes as potential mechanisms of action and no specific studies were included that were focused on “moderators” of efficacy. Were there studies included in this review which focused specifically on identifying “moderators of efficacy”? If not, the current methodology would not be able to support any specific claims on moderators e.g. “Absence of evidence for contextual moderators of omega-3 efficacy”. Are there other studies out there which might have focused specifically on potential mechanisms of action of omega-3? This would either require a reworking of the research questions and the scope of the narrative synthesis or change the tone of the discussion of its limitations.

Discussion

The discussion should be revised as necessary based on comments raised about the introduction and methods.

References

References appear comprehensive and consistently presented. Some page numbers may be missing (or could be the due to the publication style of those materials).

Reviewer #3: An interesting paper which broadly investigated an area where there is dearth of literature.

The paper is well written and organized however, there are minor grammatical errors that the authors should take note of.

Introduction

- highlighted well the importance of undertaking the review.

- i found the argument that most young people do not benefit from pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy rather biased as there is evidence against it. I understand why the authors would want to present only one side. I believe it would be fair to present both sides and still justify the review.

Methods

- well articulated

- inclusion of the stakeholders is a welcome novel approach. May the authors kindly elaborate further on how they recruited the stakeholders, beyond just mentioning that they used Facebook

- Would it be possible to report Cohen's kappa as an indicator of coding reliability between the coders?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Olorunfemi Oladotun Ogunwobi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Adegboyega Ogunwale

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284057.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Feb 2023

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is technically sound, with methodology appropriate to the study objectives. The data presented are clearly in support of the conclusions.

The narrative review was comprehensive and detailed enough with clear criteria for the selection of the articles.

The reviewed studies were specified with all relevant data available for scrutiny.

The writing style and language was easy to read and understand.

Response: Thank you.

Reviewer #2: General Comments

The subject-matter raised in this paper is quite relevant to the psychopharmacology of mood and anxiety disorders with particular reference to a segment of the patient population from which data regarding the outcomes on the use of omega-3 as treatment are scarce. It should be of interest to the international audience of the journal.

Response: Thank you.

Title

The title is succinct and focuses on depression and anxiety “symptoms” which the review tries to address. However, this broad perspective of “symptoms” rather than “disorders” also particularly leads to a conflation of issues/findings which creates some confusion as to the research questions being investigated.

Response: Given the broad scope of the review, the word ‘symptoms’ was chosen to reflect that included studies used both clinical and non-clinical samples as there were no restrictions placed on psychiatric diagnoses. We have now modified the manuscript in order to ensure that the focus on symptoms is clear throughout.

Abstract

The abstract does have reasonably sufficient information.

Response: Thank you.

Introduction

The introduction appears generally well-written. The language is easy to follow. However, the authors stated in their opening statement as follows: “Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental illnesses in young people, with 50% of lifetime cases of mental illness beginning before age 14, and 75% beginning before age 24 (1).” This seems to suggest that the emphasis of the review is on the “disorders” rather than the “symptoms” while the entire review does the opposite. The import of this conflation is that the patient samples required to examine the research questions will be different in order to avoid undue confounding in results interpretation – depressive symptoms in different disorders may not necessarily meet the criteria for the clinical diagnosis of depressive disorder. The introduction has to focus more specifically on depressive symptoms in different disorders.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have chosen to begin the manuscript with statistics about depressive and anxiety disorders despite our focus on symptoms given that symptoms of depression/anxiety can be indicative of or lead to a diagnosis of depression/anxiety. However, we have now clarified in our aims that we are examining the efficacy of omega-3 supplements for symptoms of depression and anxiety. We have also revised the introduction to highlight the high levels of comorbidity between depression and anxiety, and other mental health disorders.

Furthermore, the scope of the primary research question appears too broad for the pooling of data as you have in a systematic or scoping review.

Response: We chose to conduct a scoping review, rather than a systematic review given that scoping reviews are a preliminary assessment of the size and scope of a research topic, and are often broad in nature. In contrast, systematic reviews are characterised by their focus on a specific and narrow research question, using a systematic search and quality assessment to appraise and synthesise the quality of evidence available. Please see Grant and Booth (2009), A typology of Reviews (10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x) for more information.

The authors state the primary aim as follows: “The primary aim of this review was therefore to synthesise the current literature on the efficacy of omega-3 supplements for depression and anxiety in young people, including potential mechanisms of action and moderators of efficacy." Very few studies were available (only 2) who reported on inflammatory changes as potential mechanisms of action and no specific studies were included that were focused on “moderators” of efficacy.

Response: When designing review questions, it is standard practice to determine the aim(s) of the review a-priori, in order to shape the search strategy. Aims are not typically changed post-hoc based on the results of the search. The reviewer is correct in that only 2 studies report on potential mechanisms, and none report on moderators. Our review adds value by highlighting this gap in the existing literature. Throughout the discussion and in the conclusion of the manuscript we state that assessing potential moderators and mechanisms underlying omega-3 supplementation is an important avenue for future research.

Methods

(i) “Sample populations varied across studies, and included non-clinical samples (n = 3), people with depression (n = 4), and people with, or at risk of, a mental illness other than depression or anxiety, including psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anorexia (n = 6).”

a0. Further information is required regarding the “non-clinical samples”.

Response: Further information regarding the sample demographic characteristics for the studies with non-clinical samples (and all other studies) has been provided in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the three non-clinical samples are: ‘healthy individuals’, ‘women with polycystic ovarian syndrome’ and ‘medical students’. We have now amended this sentence and included this additional information in the results section.

b. The authors should be clear on why they chose to include samples that were being treated for other mental health conditions – this increases the risk of confounding in the data interpretation.

The authors should address this from the perspective or “symptomatic treatment” or treatment of “comorbidity” versus the treatment of a specific clinical disorder alone. I note that the authors indicated that this was a weakness in an earlier meta-analysis (Zhang L, Liu H, Kuang L, Meng H, Zhou X. Omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of 527 depressive disorders in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo528 controlled trials. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2019;13:36). On the contrary, I think it is a strength in systematic reviews/meta-analysis to make the research question as specific as possible.

Response: In the introduction section of the manuscript, we highlight that very little research has investigated whether omega-3 supplements can reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression in young people, despite some promising evidence of efficacy in adults. While the Zhang et al. systematic review and meta-analysis provides a high-quality assessment of the evidence for the efficacy of omega-3 supplements as a stand-alone depression treatment in children aged 6-18 with depression, it was not aiming to investigate the efficacy of omega-3 supplements more broadly in young people. As described in the introduction, the rationale for our review is to addresses this gap in the literature. We consider a broader age group, more diverse samples (including people without a mental illness and people with mental illnesses other than depression), and studies that assessed omega-3 as an adjunct rather than a primary, standalone treatment. While we agree that it is a strength for systematic reviews/meta-analyses to make the research question as specific as possible, we do not believe this to be the case for a scoping review (please see also earlier response on the difference between systematic and scoping reviews). Our scoping review is purposely broad in nature, and summarises the evidence for questions not covered by previous reviews.

All included studies examine whether omega-3 supplementation had an effect on depression and/or anxiety symptoms. While including studies with diverse samples adds noise to the data, we disagree that it is a confounding variable given that we found no identifiable patterns based on participant diagnosis. Nonetheless, we have noted that the heterogeneity of included studies makes it difficult to determine whether participant characteristics such as diagnosis influenced the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in the limitations section of the manuscript. We have also noted that further research is needed to more robustly determine whether diagnosis is a systematic moderator of omega-3 efficacy.

(ii) As stated above, very few studies were available (only 2) who reported on inflammatory changes as potential mechanisms of action and no specific studies were included that were focused on “moderators” of efficacy. Were there studies included in this review which focused specifically on identifying “moderators of efficacy”? If not, the current methodology would not be able to support any specific claims on moderators e.g. “Absence of evidence for contextual moderators of omega-3 efficacy”.

Response: No included studies were focused specifically on identifying moderators of efficacy, which we have now noted in the revised version of the Results and Discussion. We had used the subheading ‘Absence of evidence for contextual moderators of omega-3 efficacy’ in the discussion to reflect that we found a dearth of published research examining potential moderators of the effect of omega-3 supplements on depression and/or anxiety in young people. We have now renamed this subheading to ‘Potential contextual moderators of omega-3 efficacy’ to improve the clarity of this header.

Please note that we do not make any definitive claims about moderators of omega-3 efficacy in this section of the manuscript; rather, we have only speculated on potential moderators based on study characteristics and outcomes/variables assessed by included studies.

Are there other studies out there which might have focused specifically on potential mechanisms of action of omega-3? This would either require a reworking of the research questions and the scope of the narrative synthesis or change the tone of the discussion of its limitations.

Response: There are several proposed mechanisms of action for omega-3 on symptoms of depression and anxiety, including inhibiting the inflammatory response via upregulation of proinflammatory cytokines and eicosanoids and upregulation of serotonin activity. We discuss these mechanisms in the second paragraph of the introduction (please see Berk et al., 2013; Simopoulos, 2002; Logan, 2003; Patrick & Ames, 2015, and Cowen, 2015, cited within the manuscript). For reviews focused on potential mechanisms see also Grosso et al., 2014 (depression), Polokowski et al., 2020 (anxiety).

Studies that examined potential mechanisms of action for omega-3 in general were not in the scope of this review. We were specifically interested in understanding mechanisms of action underlying any effects of omega-3 supplements on depression and/or anxiety symptoms in young people. We believe any studies that examined both the effect of omega-3 supplements on symptoms of depression and/or anxiety in young people and mechanisms of action would have been detected by our search. Mechanisms specific to the effect on young people are of interest given that there may be age-dependent effects of omega-3 due to changes to the brain occurring during adolescence and young adulthood (see Mongan et al., 2021 and Johnson et al., 2009, referenced within the manuscript). We discuss this possibility within the fifth paragraph of the discussion.

Discussion

The discussion should be revised as necessary based on comments raised about the introduction and methods.

Response: Please see above responses which describe changes made to the discussion section of the manuscript.

References

References appear comprehensive and consistently presented. Some page numbers may be missing (or could be the due to the publication style of those materials).

Response: Articles without page numbers in the reference list are due to the publication style (online journal, no page numbers).

Reviewer #3: An interesting paper which broadly investigated an area where there is dearth of literature.

The paper is well written and organized however, there are minor grammatical errors that the authors should take note of.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the manuscript to remove these grammatical errors.

Introduction

- highlighted well the importance of undertaking the review.

Response: Thank you.

- i found the argument that most young people do not benefit from pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy rather biased as there is evidence against it. I understand why the authors would want to present only one side. I believe it would be fair to present both sides and still justify the review.

Response: We did not state that ‘most’ young people do not benefit, rather that a ‘significant proportion’ do not benefit. Nonetheless we have now changed the language to ‘significant minority’ to reflect a more balanced view.

Methods

- well articulated

- inclusion of the stakeholders is a welcome novel approach. May the authors kindly elaborate further on how they recruited the stakeholders, beyond just mentioning that they used Facebook

Response: Thank you. After posting the advertisement, potential stakeholders filled out an expression of interest that included questions about their basic demographic characteristics (age, gender), familiarity with omega-3 supplements, profession (for health professionals only) and availability to attend various workshop dates. We selected stakeholders on the basis of availability, as well to achieve a diverse group of stakeholders with regard to their demographic characteristics and experience/knowledge about omega-3 supplements. We have now some added additional detail on how stakeholders were recruited in the manuscript.

- Would it be possible to report Cohen's kappa as an indicator of coding reliability between the coders?

Response: We now report Cohen’s kappa in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - 03.02.23.docx

Decision Letter 1

Anthony A Olashore

8 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-32790R1Omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of youth depression and anxiety symptoms: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reily,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. There are minor comments raised by one of the reviewers that I would like you to address before your manuscript can be considered. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Anthony A. Olashore, PhD, FWACP

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: My very warm thanks to the authors for their detailed responses to all my comments. I have only one minor amendment suggestion to the text of the paper:

p. 23, line 383-384: Since there were no included studies of moderators, it seems like an over-statement to imply that your findings contrast with those of studies among adults. Absence of studies is different from absence of evidence. Without the evidence, the claim of contrast cannot be upheld. I suggest that the statement be modified as: “However, research conducted among adults suggests that use of omega-3 as an adjunct to antidepressant medication and at higher doses may improve effectiveness thereby serving as moderators of treatment effect” [or something of that nature]. This avoids the burden of contrast while making the valid point.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Adegboyega Ogunwale

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284057.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Mar 2023

Reviewer #2: My very warm thanks to the authors for their detailed responses to all my comments. I have only one minor amendment suggestion to the text of the paper:

p. 23, line 383-384: Since there were no included studies of moderators, it seems like an over-statement to imply that your findings contrast with those of studies among adults. Absence of studies is different from absence of evidence. Without the evidence, the claim of contrast cannot be upheld. I suggest that the statement be modified as: “However, research conducted among adults suggests that use of omega-3 as an adjunct to antidepressant medication and at higher doses may improve effectiveness thereby serving as moderators of treatment effect” [or something of that nature]. This avoids the burden of contrast while making the valid point.

We thank Reviewer 2 for their feedback on our manuscript. We have now modified the statement appearing on p 23, in line with the author’s suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Anthony A Olashore

22 Mar 2023

Omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of youth depression and anxiety symptoms: A scoping review

PONE-D-22-32790R2

Dear Dr. Reily,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Anthony A. Olashore, MBCHB, FWACP, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Anthony A Olashore

3 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-32790R2

Omega-3 supplements in the prevention and treatment of youth depression and anxiety symptoms: A scoping review

Dear Dr. Reily:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Anthony A. Olashore

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Preferred reporting items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Search terms for academic databases.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Grey literature search terms and databases.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Cochrane risk of bias ratings for randomised controlled trials (n = 13).

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Ratings of grey literature according to comprehensiveness, accuracy of information, and reference to peer-reviewed literature (n = 12).

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Characteristics of included non-randomised controlled trials (n = 4).

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. Findings from non-randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of omega-3 supplementation on depression and/or anxiety (n = 4).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers - 03.02.23.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Given that this is a systematic and scoping review, there is no primary data associated with this work. All included academic articles and grey literature sources are cited in the manuscript. All data extracted in the review process and during quality assessment is presented within the manuscript or supplementary materials.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES