Accuracy Of Depression Screening Tools Research Articles

Optimal cut-offs of depression screening tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

BackgroundStudies have reported an increase in the prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accuracy of screening tools may change with the prevalence and distribution of a disease in a population or sample: the “Spectrum Effect”.MethodsFirst, we selected commonly used screening tools and developed search strategies for the inclusion of original studies during the pandemic. Second, we searched PsycINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from March 2020 to September 2022 to obtain original studies that investigated the accuracy of depression screening tools during the pandemic. We then searched these databases to identify meta-analyses summarizing the accuracy of these tools conducted before the pandemic and compared the optimal cut-offs for depression screening tools during the pandemic with those before.ResultFour original studies evaluating the optimal cut-offs for four screening tools (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI-II], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression [HADS-D], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 [GDS-4]) were published during the pandemic. Four meta-analyses summarizing these tools before the pandemic. We found that the optimal cut-off of BDI-II was 14 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with Type 2 diabetes) and 14.5 before the pandemic (17.6% depression prevalence, screening psychiatric, primary care, and healthy populations); HADS-D was 10 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with type 2 diabetes) and 7 before the pandemic (15.0% depression prevalence, screening medically ill patients); PHQ-9 was 11 during the pandemic (14.5% depression prevalence, screening university students) and 8 before the pandemic (10.9% depression prevalence, screening the unrestricted population), and GDS-4 was 1.8 during the pandemic (29.0% depression prevalence, screening adults seen in a memory clinic setting) and 3 before the pandemic (18.5% depression prevalence, screening older adults).ConclusionThe optimal cut-off for different screening tools may be sensitive to changes in study populations and reference standards. And potential spectrum effects that should be considered in post-COVID time which aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests and Treatment for Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Depression: A Systematic Review.

Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).

The prevalence of depression and the accuracy of depression screening tools in migraine patients.

Migraine and depression are common comorbid conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess how well the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) perform as depression screening tools in patients with migraine. Three hundred consecutive migraine patients were recruited from a large headache center. The PHQ-9 and HADS were self-administered and validated against the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV, a gold standard for the diagnosis of depression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and receiver-operator characteristic curves were calculated for the PHQ-9 and HADS. At the traditional cut-point of 10, the PHQ-9 demonstrated 82.0% sensitivity and 79.9% specificity. At a cut-point of 8, the HADS demonstrated 86.5% sensitivity and specificity. The PHQ-9 algorithm performed poorly (53.8% sensitivity, 94.9% specificity). The point prevalence of depression in this study was 25.0% (95% CI 19.0-31.0), and 17.0% of patients had untreated depression. In this study, the PHQ-9 and HADS performed well in migraine patients attending a headache clinic, but optimal cut-points to screen for depression vary depending on the goals of the assessment. Also, migraine patients attending a headache clinic have a high prevalence of depression and many are inadequately treated. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the impact of depression screening.

Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools to Detect Major Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

Depression screening among children and adolescents is controversial, and no clinical trials have evaluated benefits and harms of screening programs. A requirement for effective screening is a screening tool with demonstrated high accuracy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of depression screening instruments to detect major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents. Data sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HaPI, and LILACS databases from 2006 to September 30, 2015. Eligible studies compared a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for MDD and reported accuracy data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. We identified 17 studies with data on 20 depression screening tools. Few studies examined the accuracy of the same screening tools. Cut-off scores identified as optimal were inconsistent across studies. Width of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for sensitivity ranged from 9% to 55% (median 32%), and only 1 study had a lower bound 95% CI ≥80%. For specificity, 95% CI width ranged from 2% to 27% (median 9%), and 3 studies had a lower bound ≥90%. Methodological limitations included small sample sizes, exploratory data analyses to identify optimal cut-offs, and the failure to exclude children and adolescents already diagnosed or treated for depression. There is insufficient evidence that any depression screening tool and cut-off accurately screens for MDD in children and adolescents. Screening could lead to overdiagnosis and the consumption of scarce health care resources.

Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement

ObjectiveMeta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. The objective of our study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. ResultsWe identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. Twelve of 21 meta-analyses complied with at least 50% of adapted PRISMA items. Of 30 adapted PRISMA items, 11 were fulfilled by ≥80% of included meta-analyses, 3 by 50–79% of meta-analyses, 7 by 25–45% of meta-analyses, and 9 by <25%. On average, post-PRISMA meta-analyses complied with 17 of 30 items compared to 13 of 30 items pre-PRISMA. ConclusionsDeficiencies in the transparency of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools of meta-analyses were identified. Authors, reviewers, and editors should adhere to the PRISMA statement to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.

Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses

ObjectiveDatabase searches for studies of diagnostic test accuracy are notoriously difficult to filter, highly resource-intensive, and a potential barrier to quality evidence synthesis. We examined published meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy to evaluate the (1) proportion of included primary studies found in any online database in the original meta-analyses that were indexed in MEDLINE; (2) the proportion of patients from MEDLINE-indexed studies; and (3) the proportion of depression cases from studies indexed in MEDLINE. MethodsMEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2014 for meta-analyses in any language on the accuracy of depression screening tools. ResultsWe identified 16 eligible meta-analyses that included 398 primary study citations, which had been identified via an online database in the original meta-analyses, including 257 unique citations and 234 unique patient samples. The 234 unique patient samples included 69,957 total patients and 11,867 depression cases. Of these, 220 samples (94%) were from studies indexed in MEDLINE, including 97% of all patients and 96% of all depression cases. When applying a peer-reviewed search strategy in MEDLINE, 91% of all samples, 96% of patients and 95% of depression cases were retrieved. Results were similar for total and unique citations. ConclusionsRestricting searches to MEDLINE may capture almost all eligible studies, patients and depression cases. Although not examined in the present study, MEDLINE may not be indexed as quickly as other databases. Thus, MEDLINE searches should be complemented by date-limited searches of other databases for recent citations.

Sample sizes and precision of estimates of sensitivity and specificity from primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools: a survey of recently published studies.

Depression screening tools are useful to the extent that they accurately discriminate between depressed and non-depressed patients. Studies without enough patients to generate precise estimates make it difficult to evaluate accuracy. We conducted a survey of recently published studies on depression screening tool accuracy to evaluate the percentage with sample size calculations; the percentage that provided confidence intervals; and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity. We calculated 95% confidence intervals, if possible, when not provided. Only three of 89 studies (3%) described a viable sample size calculation. Only 30 studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate confidence intervals. Of 86 studies where 95% confidence intervals were provided or could be calculated, only seven (8%) had interval widths for sensitivity of ≤ 10%, whereas 53 (62%) had widths of ≥ 21%. Lower bounds of confidence intervals were < 80% for 84% of studies for sensitivity and 66% of studies for specificity. Overall, few studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools reported sample size calculations, and the number of patients in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates. The failure to provide confidence intervals in published reports may obscure these shortcomings. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Methodological quality of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools

ObjectiveConcerns have been raised that primary studies of diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools may exaggerate estimates of accuracy and that this could also influence the results of meta-analyses. No studies, however, have evaluated the quality of meta-analyses of depression screening tools. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy. ResultsWe identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. The majority provided a list of included studies (100%), included a comprehensive literature search (95%) and assessed risk of bias of included studies (71%). Meta-analyses less consistently included non-published evidence (38%), listed excluded studies (33%), incorporated risk of bias findings into conclusions (33%), and assessed selective cutoff reporting (29%). Meta-analyses rarely reported that duplicate study selection or data extraction occurred (14%), mentioned ‘a priori’ protocols (10%), or reported on conflicts of interest (0%) or funding sources (0%) of primary studies. Only 6 of 21 included meta-analyses complied with at least 7 of 14 adapted AMSTAR items. ConclusionsThe methodological quality of most meta-analyses of the diagnostic test accuracy of depression screening tools is suboptimal. Improving quality will reduce the risk of inaccurate estimates of accuracy and inappropriate inferences.

Risk of Bias from Inclusion of Currently Diagnosed or Treated Patients in Studies of Depression Screening Tool Accuracy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Recently Published Primary Studies and Meta-Analyses.

BackgroundDepression screening can improve upon usual care only if screening tools accurately identify depressed patients who would not otherwise be recognized by healthcare providers. Inclusion of patients already being treated for depression in studies of screening tool accuracy would inflate estimates of screening accuracy and yield. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of primary studies of depression screening tool accuracy that were recently published in journals listed in MEDLINE, which appropriately excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients; and (2) whether recently published meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed or treated patients as a potential source of bias.MethodsMEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2013 through March 27, 2015 for primary studies and meta-analyses on depression screening tool accuracy.ResultsOnly 5 of 89 (5.6%) primary studies excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients from any analyses and only 3 (3.4%) from main analyses. In 3 studies that reported the number of patients excluded due to current treatment, the number of excluded patients was more than twice the number of newly identified depression cases. None of 5 meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients as a potential source of bias.ConclusionsThe inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients in studies of depression screening tool accuracy is a problem that limits the applicability of research findings for actual clinical practice. Studies are needed that evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools among only untreated patients who would potentially be screened in practice.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for detecting major depression in pregnant and postnatal women: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses

IntroductionStudies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools often used data-driven methods to select optimal cut-offs. Typically, these studies report results from a small range of cut-off points around...

The diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses.

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) may be present in 10%–20% of patients in medical settings. Routine depression screening is sometimes recommended to improve depression management. However, studies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools have typically used data-driven, exploratory methods to select optimal cutoffs. Often, these studies report results from a small range of cutoff points around whatever cutoff score is most accurate in that given study. When published data are combined in meta-analyses, estimates of accuracy for different cutoff points may be based on data from different studies, rather than data from all studies for each possible cutoff point. As a result, traditional meta-analyses may generate exaggerated estimates of accuracy. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses can address this problem by synthesizing data from all studies for each cutoff score to obtain diagnostic accuracy estimates. The nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the shorter PHQ-2 and PHQ-8 are commonly recommended for depression screening. Thus, the primary objectives of our IPD meta-analyses are to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9, PHQ-8, and PHQ-2 to detect MDD among adults across all potentially relevant cutoff scores. Secondary analyses involve assessing accuracy accounting for patient factors that may influence accuracy (age, sex, medical comorbidity).Methods/designData sources will include MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will include studies that included a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or International Classification of Diseases diagnosis of MDD based on a validated structured or semi-structured clinical interview administered within 2 weeks of the administration of the PHQ. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article review, and extract study data. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted for the full range of plausible cutoff values.DiscussionThe proposed IPD meta-analyses will allow us to obtain estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9, PHQ-8, and PHQ-2.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014010673

Depression screening and mental health outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review protocol.

BackgroundDepression is an important cause of disability among children and adolescents. Depression screening is one possible method for managing depression, and screening programs have been initiated in some school and medical settings. However, in 2005, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the United Kingdom National Institute of Clinical Excellence did not recommend depression screening among children and adolescents. By contrast, in 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all adolescents, but not younger children, be screened for depression in medical settings with integrated depression management services, although no trials of screening were identified. The objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate in children and adolescents the accuracy of depression screening tools; depression treatment efficacy; whether depression screening improves depression outcomes; and potential harms related to depression interventions and screening.Methods/designData sources will include the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, LILACS and Web of Science, supplemented by reference harvesting of eligible articles, relevant systematic reviews, relevant guidelines and recommendations, and selected journals, and by searches for unpublished studies. Eligible studies will report data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Eligible diagnostic accuracy studies must compare a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for major depressive disorder and report diagnostic accuracy data. Eligible treatment studies must be randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, or other depression treatments commonly available for children and adolescents in pediatric, primary-care, and family medicine settings. Eligible screening studies must be randomized controlled trials that compare depression outcomes between children or adolescents who underwent depression screening versus those who did not. Studies of harms will include randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate harms from depression screening or treatment. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article review. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Two investigators will independently extract the data, with discrepancies resolved via consensus.DiscussionThe proposed systematic review will determine whether there is sufficient evidence of benefits in excess of harms and costs to support screening for depression in childhood and adolescence.

Depression Screening and Patient Outcomes in Cancer: A Systematic Review

BackgroundSeveral practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes.MethodsData sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT.ResultsThere were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37).ConclusionsThe one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.

Accuracy of depression screening tools for identifying postpartum depression among urban mothers.

The goal was to describe the accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), and Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) in identifying major depressive disorder (MDD) or minor depressive disorder (MnDD) among low-income, urban mothers attending well-child care (WCC) visits during the postpartum year. Mothers (N = 198) attending WCC visits with their infants 0 to 14 months of age completed a psychiatric diagnostic interview (standard method) and 3 screening tools. The sensitivities and specificities of each screening tool were calculated in comparison with diagnoses of MDD or MDD/MnDD. Receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and the areas under the curves for each tool were compared to assess accuracy for the entire sample (representing the postpartum year) and subsamples (representing early, middle, and late postpartum time frames). Optimal cutoff scores were calculated. At some point between 2 weeks and 14 months after delivery, 56% of mothers met criteria for either MDD (37%) or MnDD (19%). When used as continuous measures, all scales performed equally well (areas under the curves of > or =0.8). With traditional cutoff scores, the measures did not perform at the expected levels of sensitivity and specificity. Optimal cutoff scores for the BDI-II (> or =14 for MDD and > or =11 for MDD/MnDD) and EPDS (> or =9 for MDD and > or =7 for MDD/MnDD) were lower than currently recommended. For the PDSS, the optimal cutoff score was consistent with current guidelines for MDD (> or =80) but higher than recommended for MDD/MnDD (> or =77). Large proportions of low-income, urban mothers attending WCC visits experience MDD or MnDD during the postpartum year. The EPDS, BDI-II, and PDSS have high accuracy in identifying depression, but cutoff scores may need to be altered to identify depression more accurately among urban, low-income mothers.