Research ExplorerPublicationsDepression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depre...

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, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1860, 03.2021.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Lyubenova, A, Neupane, D, Levis, B, Wu, Y, Sun, Y, He, C, Krishnan, A, Bhandari, PM, Negeri, Z, Imran, M, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Riehm, KE, Boruff, JT, Ioannidis, JPA, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Comeau, L, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Vigod, SN, Aceti, F, Barnes, J, Bavle, AD, Beck, CT, Bindt, C, Boyce, PM, Bunevicius, A, Chaudron, LH, Favez, N, Figueiredo, B, Garcia-Esteve, L, Giardinelli, L, Helle, N, Howard, LM, Kohlhoff, J, Kusminskas, L, Kozinszky, Z, Lelli, L, Leonardou, AA, Meuti, V, Radoš, SN, García, PN, Pawlby, SJ, Quispel, C, Robertson-Blackmore, E, Rochat, TJ, Sharp, DJ, Siu, BWM, Stein, A, Stewart, RC, Tadinac, M, Tandon, SD, Tendais, I, Töreki, A, Torres-Giménez, A, Tran, TD, Trevillion, K, Turner, K, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Benedetti, A & Thombs, BD 2021, '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', INT J METH PSYCH RES, vol. 30, no. 1, 1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

APA

Lyubenova, A., Neupane, D., Levis, B., Wu, Y., Sun, Y., He, C., Krishnan, A., Bhandari, P. M., Negeri, Z., Imran, M., Rice, D. B., Azar, M., Chiovitti, M. J., Saadat, N., Riehm, K. E., Boruff, J. T., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., ... Thombs, B. D. (2021). 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. INT J METH PSYCH RES, 30(1), [1860]. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

Vancouver

Lyubenova A, Neupane D, Levis B, Wu Y, Sun Y, He C et al. 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. INT J METH PSYCH RES. 2021 Mar;30(1). 1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

Bibtex

@article{fa2d9bb0820940cab1a4b4ae60aecbf0,
title = "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",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Anita Lyubenova and Dipika Neupane and Brooke Levis and Yin Wu and Ying Sun and Chen He and Ankur Krishnan and Bhandari, {Parash M} and Zelalem Negeri and Mahrukh Imran and Rice, {Danielle B} and Marleine Azar and Chiovitti, {Matthew J} and Nazanin Saadat and Riehm, {Kira E} and Boruff, {Jill T} and Ioannidis, {John P A} and Pim Cuijpers and Simon Gilbody and Kloda, {Lorie A} and Patten, {Scott B} and Ian Shrier and Ziegelstein, {Roy C} and Liane Comeau and Mitchell, {Nicholas D} and Marcello Tonelli and Vigod, {Simone N} and Franca Aceti and Jacqueline Barnes and Bavle, {Amar D} and Beck, {Cheryl T} and Carola Bindt and Boyce, {Philip M} and Adomas Bunevicius and Chaudron, {Linda H} and Nicolas Favez and Barbara Figueiredo and Llu{\"i}sa Garcia-Esteve and Lisa Giardinelli and Nadine Helle and Howard, {Louise M} and Jane Kohlhoff and Laima Kusminskas and Zolt{\'a}n Kozinszky and Lorenzo Lelli and Leonardou, {Angeliki A} and Valentina Meuti and Rado{\v s}, {Sandra N} and Garc{\'i}a, {Purificaci{\'o}n N} and Pawlby, {Susan J} and Chantal Quispel and Emma Robertson-Blackmore and Rochat, {Tamsen J} and Sharp, {Deborah J} and Siu, {Bonnie W M} and Alan Stein and Stewart, {Robert C} and Meri Tadinac and Tandon, {S Darius} and Iva Tendais and Annam{\'a}ria T{\"o}reki and Anna Torres-Gim{\'e}nez and Tran, {Thach D} and Kylee Trevillion and Katherine Turner and Vega-Dienstmaier, {Johann M} and Andrea Benedetti and Thombs, {Brett D}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1002/mpr.1860",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
journal = "INT J METH PSYCH RES",
issn = "1049-8931",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

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 -