Search

Depression questionnaire cutoffs are calibrated for screening accuracy and not to assess prevalence, but the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) is often used to estimate diagnostic prevalence among older adults, most commonly with scores of ≥ 5. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to compare depression prevalence based on GDS-15 ≥ 5 to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (SCID) diagnoses and assessed whether an alternative cutoff could be more accurate. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate prevalence. Data from 14 studies (3602 participants, 434 SCID major depression) were included. Pooled GDS-15 ≥ 5 prevalence was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.5–41.6%), and pooled SCID prevalence was 14.8% (95% CI 10.0–21.5%; difference of 17.6%, 95% CI 11.6–23.6%). GDS-15 ≥ 8 provided the closest estimate to SCID with mean difference of − 0.3% (95% prediction interval − 17.0–16.5%). Prevalence estimate differences were not associated with study or participant characteristics. In sum, GDS-15 ≥ 5 substantially overestimated depression prevalence. A cutoff of ≥ 8 was accurate overall, but heterogeneity was too high for implementation in practice. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to estimate major depression prevalence among older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from −0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02–0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. Public Significance Statement: The present study suggests that the accuracy of 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) and the seven-item HADS Depression subscale (HADS-D) are equivalent for detecting major depression. Using the seven-item HADS-D for depression screening instead of the full 14-item HADS-T has minimal influence on performance of the measure but would reduce patient and participant burden in most clinical and research settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]