Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
Standard
Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. / Lyubenova, Anita; Neupane, Dipika; Levis, Brooke; Wu, Yin; Sun, Ying; He, Chen; Krishnan, Ankur; Bhandari, Parash M; Negeri, Zelalem; Imran, Mahrukh; Rice, Danielle B; Azar, Marleine; Chiovitti, Matthew J; Saadat, Nazanin; Riehm, Kira E; Boruff, Jill T; Ioannidis, John P A; Cuijpers, Pim; Gilbody, Simon; Kloda, Lorie A; Patten, Scott B; Shrier, Ian; Ziegelstein, Roy C; Comeau, Liane; Mitchell, Nicholas D; Tonelli, Marcello; Vigod, Simone N; Aceti, Franca; Barnes, Jacqueline; Bavle, Amar D; Beck, Cheryl T; Bindt, Carola; Boyce, Philip M; Bunevicius, Adomas; Chaudron, Linda H; Favez, Nicolas; Figueiredo, Barbara; Garcia-Esteve, Lluïsa; Giardinelli, Lisa; Helle, Nadine; Howard, Louise M; Kohlhoff, Jane; Kusminskas, Laima; Kozinszky, Zoltán; Lelli, Lorenzo; Leonardou, Angeliki A; Meuti, Valentina; Radoš, Sandra N; García, Purificación N; Pawlby, Susan J; Quispel, Chantal; Robertson-Blackmore, Emma; Rochat, Tamsen J; Sharp, Deborah J; Siu, Bonnie W M; Stein, Alan; Stewart, Robert C; Tadinac, Meri; Tandon, S Darius; Tendais, Iva; Töreki, Annamária; Torres-Giménez, Anna; Tran, Thach D; Trevillion, Kylee; Turner, Katherine; Vega-Dienstmaier, Johann M; Benedetti, Andrea; Thombs, Brett D.
in: INT J METH PSYCH RES, Jahrgang 30, Nr. 1, 1860, 03.2021.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
AU - Lyubenova, Anita
AU - Neupane, Dipika
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Wu, Yin
AU - Sun, Ying
AU - He, Chen
AU - Krishnan, Ankur
AU - Bhandari, Parash M
AU - Negeri, Zelalem
AU - Imran, Mahrukh
AU - Rice, Danielle B
AU - Azar, Marleine
AU - Chiovitti, Matthew J
AU - Saadat, Nazanin
AU - Riehm, Kira E
AU - Boruff, Jill T
AU - Ioannidis, John P A
AU - Cuijpers, Pim
AU - Gilbody, Simon
AU - Kloda, Lorie A
AU - Patten, Scott B
AU - Shrier, Ian
AU - Ziegelstein, Roy C
AU - Comeau, Liane
AU - Mitchell, Nicholas D
AU - Tonelli, Marcello
AU - Vigod, Simone N
AU - Aceti, Franca
AU - Barnes, Jacqueline
AU - Bavle, Amar D
AU - Beck, Cheryl T
AU - Bindt, Carola
AU - Boyce, Philip M
AU - Bunevicius, Adomas
AU - Chaudron, Linda H
AU - Favez, Nicolas
AU - Figueiredo, Barbara
AU - Garcia-Esteve, Lluïsa
AU - Giardinelli, Lisa
AU - Helle, Nadine
AU - Howard, Louise M
AU - Kohlhoff, Jane
AU - Kusminskas, Laima
AU - Kozinszky, Zoltán
AU - Lelli, Lorenzo
AU - Leonardou, Angeliki A
AU - Meuti, Valentina
AU - Radoš, Sandra N
AU - García, Purificación N
AU - Pawlby, Susan J
AU - Quispel, Chantal
AU - Robertson-Blackmore, Emma
AU - Rochat, Tamsen J
AU - Sharp, Deborah J
AU - Siu, Bonnie W M
AU - Stein, Alan
AU - Stewart, Robert C
AU - Tadinac, Meri
AU - Tandon, S Darius
AU - Tendais, Iva
AU - Töreki, Annamária
AU - Torres-Giménez, Anna
AU - Tran, Thach D
AU - Trevillion, Kylee
AU - Turner, Katherine
AU - Vega-Dienstmaier, Johann M
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Thombs, Brett D
N1 - © 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - OBJECTIVES: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies.METHODS: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID.RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%-34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%-12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: -13.7%, 12.3%).CONCLUSION: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.
AB - OBJECTIVES: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies.METHODS: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID.RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%-34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%-12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: -13.7%, 12.3%).CONCLUSION: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.
U2 - 10.1002/mpr.1860
DO - 10.1002/mpr.1860
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 33089942
VL - 30
JO - INT J METH PSYCH RES
JF - INT J METH PSYCH RES
SN - 1049-8931
IS - 1
M1 - 1860
ER -