Search

Objective: The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported “feelings consistent with postpartum depression” based on scores ≥7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 ≥7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 ≥7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence. Results: A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 ≥7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times. Conclusions: Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 ≥7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cpa-10.1177_07067437211070648 for Effects of COVID-19 Mental Health Interventions Among Children, Adolescents, and Adults Not Quarantined or Undergoing Treatment Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials by Olivia Bonardi, Yutong Wang, Kexin Li, Xiaowen Jiang, Ankur Krishnan, Chen He, Ying Sun, Yin Wu, Jill T. Boruff, Sarah Markham, Danielle B. Rice, Ian Thombs-Vite, Amina Tasleem, Tiffany Dal Santo, Anneke Yao, Marleine Azar, Branka Agic, Christine Fahim, Michael S. Martin, Sanjeev Sockalingam, Gustavo Turecki, Andrea Benedetti and Brett D. Thombs in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

ObjectiveTo update a previous individual participant data meta-analysis and determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the most commonly used depression screening tool in general practice, for detecting major depression overall and by study or participant subgroups.DesignSystematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Medline In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science searched through 9 May 2018.Review methodsEligible studies administered the PHQ-9 and classified current major depression status using a validated semistructured diagnostic interview (designed for clinician administration), fully structured interview (designed for lay administration), or the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; a brief interview designed for lay administration). A bivariate random effects meta-analytic model was used to obtain point and interval estimates of pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity at cut-off values 5-15, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), fully structured interviews (eg, Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and the MINI. Meta-regression was used to investigate whether PHQ-9 accuracy correlated with reference standard categories and participant characteristics.ResultsData from 44 503 total participants (27 146 additional from the update) were obtained from 100 of 127 eligible studies (42 additional studies; 79% eligible studies; 86% eligible participants). Among studies with a semistructured interview reference standard, pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) at the standard cut-off value of ≥10, which maximised combined sensitivity and specificity, were 0.85 (0.79 to 0.89) and 0.85 (0.82 to 0.87), respectively. Specificity was similar across reference standards, but sensitivity in studies with semistructured interviews was 7-24% (median 21%) higher than with fully structured reference standards and 2-14% (median 11%) higher than with the MINI across cut-off values. Across reference standards and cut-off values, specificity was 0-10% (median 3%) higher for men and 0-12 (median 5%) higher for people aged 60 or older.ConclusionsResearchers and clinicians could use results to determine outcomes, such as total number of positive screens and false positive screens, at different PHQ-9 cut-off values for different clinical settings using the knowledge translation tool atwww.depressionscreening100.com/phq.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42014010673.

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.

Aims: This study used a large database to develop a reliable and valid shortened form of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a self-report questionnaire used for depression screening in pregnancy and postpartum, based on objective criteria. Methods: Item responses from the 10-item EPDS were obtained from 5157 participants (765 major depression cases) from 22 primary screening accuracy studies that compared the EPDS to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). Unidimensionality of the EPDS latent construct was verified using confirmatory factor analysis, and an item response theory model was fit. Optimal test assembly (OTA) methods identified a maximally informative shortened form for each possible scale length between 1 and 9 items. The final shortened form was selected based on prespecified validity and reliability criteria and non-inferiority of screening accuracy of the EPDS as compared to the SCID. Results: A 5-item short form of the EPDS (EPDS-Dep-5) was selected. The EPDSDep-5 had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.82. Sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS-Dep-5 for a cutoff of 4 or greater were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.73, 0.89) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80, 0.90) and were statistically non-inferior to the EPDS. The correlation of total scores with the full EPDS was high (r = 0.91). Conclusion: The EPDS-Dep-5 is a valid short form with minimal loss of information when compared to the full-length EPDS. The EPDS-Dep-5 was developed with OTA methods using objective, pre-specified criteria, but the approach is data-driven and exploratory. Thus, there is a need to replicate results of this study in different populations., This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Dr. Levis was supported by a Fonds de recherche du QuébecSanté (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowship. Drs. Thombs and Benedetti were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. Dr. Wu was supported by a FRQS Postdoctoral Training Fellowship. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Neupane was supported by G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Ms. Azar was supported by a FRQS Masters Training Award. The primary study by Barnes et al was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. The primary study by de Figueiredo et al was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tendais et al was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. This primary study by Green et al was supported by a grant from the Duke Global Health Institute (453- 0751). The primary study by Kettunen et al was supported with an Annual EVO Financing (Special government subsidies from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Finland) by North Karelia Central Hospital and Päijät-Häme Central Hospital. The primary study by Phillips et al was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Nakić Radoš et al was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (134- 0000000-2421). The primary study by Rochat et al was supported by grants from the University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Smith-Nielsen et al was supported by a grant from the charitable foundation Tryg Foundation (Grant ID no 107616). The primary study by Prenoveau et al was supported by The Wellcome Trust (grant number 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Tandon et al was funded by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc, and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc.

Researchers increasingly use meta-analysis to synthesize the results of several studies in order to estimate a common effect. When the outcome variable is continuous, standard meta-analytic approaches assume that the primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome. However, when the outcome is skewed, authors sometimes summarize the data by reporting the sample median and one or both of (i) the minimum and maximum values and (ii) the first and third quartiles, but do not report the mean or standard deviation. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several methods have been developed to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the reported summary data. A major limitation of these widely used methods is that they assume that the outcome distribution is normal, which is unlikely to be tenable for studies reporting medians. We propose two novel approaches to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation when data are suspected to be non-normal. Our simulation results and empirical assessments show that the proposed methods often perform better than the existing methods when applied to non-normal data.

Objective: The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported “feelings consistent with postpartum depression” based on scores >= 7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 >= 7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 >= 7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence. Results: A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 >= 7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times. Conclusions: Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 >= 7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence.

This article was published in Psychological Medicine with incorrect author information. MD Inagaki should be Masatoshi Inagaki and MD Stafford should be Lesley Stafford. This has since been updated as per the above.

Objective To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. Design Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). Inclusion criteria Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. Results Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. Conclusions PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. Registration PROSPERO CRD42014010673.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. DESIGN: Individual participant data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. CONCLUSIONS: PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014010673.

Objectives A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.