Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification
Standard
Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification : An individual participant data meta-analysis. / Brehaut, Eliana; Neupane, Dipika; Levis, Brooke; Wu, Yin; Sun, Ying; Krishnan, Ankur; He, Chen; Bhandari, Parash Mani; Negeri, Zelalem; Riehm, Kira E; Rice, Danielle B; Azar, Marleine; Yan, Xin Wei; Imran, Mahrukh; Chiovitti, Matthew J; Saadat, Nazanin; Cuijpers, Pim; Ioannidis, John P A; Markham, Sarah; Patten, Scott B; Ziegelstein, Roy C; Henry, Melissa; Ismail, Zahinoor; Loiselle, Carmen G; Mitchell, Nicholas D; Tonelli, Marcello; Boruff, Jill T; Kloda, Lorie A; Beraldi, Anna; Braeken, Anna P B M; Carter, Gregory; Clover, Kerrie; Conroy, Ronán M; Cukor, Daniel; da Rocha E Silva, Carlos E; De Souza, Jennifer; Downing, Marina G; Feinstein, Anthony; Ferentinos, Panagiotis P; Fischer, Felix H; Flint, Alastair J; Fujimori, Maiko; Gallagher, Pamela; Goebel, Simone; Jetté, Nathalie; Julião, Miguel; Keller, Monika; Kjærgaard, Marie; Love, Anthony W; Löwe, Bernd; Martin-Santos, Rocio; Michopoulos, Ioannis; Navines, Ricard; O'Rourke, Suzanne J; Öztürk, Ahmet; Pintor, Luis; Ponsford, Jennie L; Rooney, Alasdair G; Sánchez-González, Roberto; Schwarzbold, Marcelo L; Sharpe, Michael; Simard, Sébastien; Singer, Susanne; Stone, Jon; Tung, Ka-Yee; Turner, Alyna; Walker, Jane; Walterfang, Mark; White, Jennifer; Benedetti, Andrea; Thombs, Brett D.
in: J PSYCHOSOM RES, Jahrgang 139, 12.2020, S. 110256.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification
T2 - An individual participant data meta-analysis
AU - Brehaut, Eliana
AU - Neupane, Dipika
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Wu, Yin
AU - Sun, Ying
AU - Krishnan, Ankur
AU - He, Chen
AU - Bhandari, Parash Mani
AU - Negeri, Zelalem
AU - Riehm, Kira E
AU - Rice, Danielle B
AU - Azar, Marleine
AU - Yan, Xin Wei
AU - Imran, Mahrukh
AU - Chiovitti, Matthew J
AU - Saadat, Nazanin
AU - Cuijpers, Pim
AU - Ioannidis, John P A
AU - Markham, Sarah
AU - Patten, Scott B
AU - Ziegelstein, Roy C
AU - Henry, Melissa
AU - Ismail, Zahinoor
AU - Loiselle, Carmen G
AU - Mitchell, Nicholas D
AU - Tonelli, Marcello
AU - Boruff, Jill T
AU - Kloda, Lorie A
AU - Beraldi, Anna
AU - Braeken, Anna P B M
AU - Carter, Gregory
AU - Clover, Kerrie
AU - Conroy, Ronán M
AU - Cukor, Daniel
AU - da Rocha E Silva, Carlos E
AU - De Souza, Jennifer
AU - Downing, Marina G
AU - Feinstein, Anthony
AU - Ferentinos, Panagiotis P
AU - Fischer, Felix H
AU - Flint, Alastair J
AU - Fujimori, Maiko
AU - Gallagher, Pamela
AU - Goebel, Simone
AU - Jetté, Nathalie
AU - Julião, Miguel
AU - Keller, Monika
AU - Kjærgaard, Marie
AU - Love, Anthony W
AU - Löwe, Bernd
AU - Martin-Santos, Rocio
AU - Michopoulos, Ioannis
AU - Navines, Ricard
AU - O'Rourke, Suzanne J
AU - Öztürk, Ahmet
AU - Pintor, Luis
AU - Ponsford, Jennie L
AU - Rooney, Alasdair G
AU - Sánchez-González, Roberto
AU - Schwarzbold, Marcelo L
AU - Sharpe, Michael
AU - Simard, Sébastien
AU - Singer, Susanne
AU - Stone, Jon
AU - Tung, Ka-Yee
AU - Turner, Alyna
AU - Walker, Jane
AU - Walterfang, Mark
AU - White, Jennifer
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Thombs, Brett D
N1 - Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - OBJECTIVES: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence.METHODS: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated.RESULTS: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was -21.1% to 19.5%.CONCLUSIONS: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.
AB - OBJECTIVES: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence.METHODS: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated.RESULTS: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was -21.1% to 19.5%.CONCLUSIONS: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
DO - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 33069051
VL - 139
SP - 110256
JO - J PSYCHOSOM RES
JF - J PSYCHOSOM RES
SN - 0022-3999
ER -