Search

Your search keyword '"Braeken, APBM"' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Braeken, APBM"
4 results on '"Braeken, APBM"'

1. Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Author

Wu, Y, Levis, B, Sun, Y, Krishnan, A, He, C, Riehm, KE, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Yan, XW, Neupane, D, Bhandari, PM, Imran, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Boruff, JT, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, McMillan, D, Ioannidis, JPA, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Henry, M, Ismail, Z, Loiselle, CG, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Al-Adawi, S, Beraldi, A, Braeken, APBM, Bueel-Drabe, N, Bunevicius, A, Carter, G, Chen, C-K, Cheung, G, Clover, K, Conroy, RM, Cukor, D, Rocha e Silva, CE, Dabscheck, E, Daray, FM, Douven, E, Downing, MG, Feinstein, A, Ferentinos, PP, Fischer, FH, Flint, AJ, Fujimori, M, Gallagher, P, Gandy, M, Goebel, S, Grassi, L, Haerter, M, Jenewein, J, Jette, N, Juliao, M, Kim, J-M, Kim, S-W, Kjaergaard, M, Kohler, S, Loosman, WL, Loewe, B, Martin-Santos, R, Massardo, L, Matsuoka, Y, Mehnert, A, Michopoulos, I, Misery, L, Navines, R, O'Donnell, ML, Ozturk, A, Peceliuniene, J, Pintor, L, Ponsford, JL, Quinn, TJ, Reme, SE, Reuter, K, Rooney, AG, Sanchez-Gonzalez, R, Schwarzbold, ML, Cankorur, VS, Shaaban, J, Sharpe, L, Sharpe, M, Simard, S, Singer, S, Stafford, L, Stone, J, Sultan, S, Teixeira, AL, Tiringer, I, Turner, A, Walker, J, Walterfang, M, Wang, L-J, White, J, Wong, DK, Benedetti, A, Thombs, BD, Wu, Y, Levis, B, Sun, Y, Krishnan, A, He, C, Riehm, KE, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Yan, XW, Neupane, D, Bhandari, PM, Imran, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Boruff, JT, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, McMillan, D, Ioannidis, JPA, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Henry, M, Ismail, Z, Loiselle, CG, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Al-Adawi, S, Beraldi, A, Braeken, APBM, Bueel-Drabe, N, Bunevicius, A, Carter, G, Chen, C-K, Cheung, G, Clover, K, Conroy, RM, Cukor, D, Rocha e Silva, CE, Dabscheck, E, Daray, FM, Douven, E, Downing, MG, Feinstein, A, Ferentinos, PP, Fischer, FH, Flint, AJ, Fujimori, M, Gallagher, P, Gandy, M, Goebel, S, Grassi, L, Haerter, M, Jenewein, J, Jette, N, Juliao, M, Kim, J-M, Kim, S-W, Kjaergaard, M, Kohler, S, Loosman, WL, Loewe, B, Martin-Santos, R, Massardo, L, Matsuoka, Y, Mehnert, A, Michopoulos, I, Misery, L, Navines, R, O'Donnell, ML, Ozturk, A, Peceliuniene, J, Pintor, L, Ponsford, JL, Quinn, TJ, Reme, SE, Reuter, K, Rooney, AG, Sanchez-Gonzalez, R, Schwarzbold, ML, Cankorur, VS, Shaaban, J, Sharpe, L, Sharpe, M, Simard, S, Singer, S, Stafford, L, Stone, J, Sultan, S, Teixeira, AL, Tiringer, I, Turner, A, Walker, J, Walterfang, M, Wang, L-J, White, J, Wong, DK, Benedetti, A, and Thombs, BD

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). METHODS: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. RESULTS: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). CONCLUSION: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.

Published
2020

2. Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Author

Brehaut, E, Neupane, D, Levis, B, Wu, Y, Sun, Y, Krishnan, A, He, C, Bhandari, PM, Negeri, Z, Riehm, KE, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Yan, XW, Imran, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Cuijpers, P, Ioannidis, JPA, Markham, S, Patten, SB, Ziegelstein, RC, Henry, M, Ismail, Z, Loiselle, CG, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Boruff, JT, Kloda, LA, Beraldi, A, Braeken, APBM, Carter, G, Clover, K, Conroy, RM, Cukor, D, da Rocha E Silva, CE, De Souza, J, Downing, MG, Feinstein, A, Ferentinos, PP, Fischer, FH, Flint, AJ, Fujimori, M, Gallagher, P, Goebel, S, Jette, N, Juliao, M, Keller, M, Kjaergaard, M, Love, AW, Loewe, B, Martin-Santos, R, Michopoulos, I, Navines, R, O'Rourke, SJ, Ozturk, A, Pintor, L, Ponsford, JL, Rooney, AG, Sanchez-Gonzalez, R, Schwarzbold, ML, Sharpe, M, Simard, S, Singer, S, Stone, J, Tung, K-Y, Turner, A, Walker, J, Walterfang, M, White, J, Benedetti, A, Thombs, BD, Brehaut, E, Neupane, D, Levis, B, Wu, Y, Sun, Y, Krishnan, A, He, C, Bhandari, PM, Negeri, Z, Riehm, KE, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Yan, XW, Imran, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Cuijpers, P, Ioannidis, JPA, Markham, S, Patten, SB, Ziegelstein, RC, Henry, M, Ismail, Z, Loiselle, CG, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Boruff, JT, Kloda, LA, Beraldi, A, Braeken, APBM, Carter, G, Clover, K, Conroy, RM, Cukor, D, da Rocha E Silva, CE, De Souza, J, Downing, MG, Feinstein, A, Ferentinos, PP, Fischer, FH, Flint, AJ, Fujimori, M, Gallagher, P, Goebel, S, Jette, N, Juliao, M, Keller, M, Kjaergaard, M, Love, AW, Loewe, B, Martin-Santos, R, Michopoulos, I, Navines, R, O'Rourke, SJ, Ozturk, A, Pintor, L, Ponsford, JL, Rooney, AG, Sanchez-Gonzalez, R, Schwarzbold, ML, Sharpe, M, Simard, S, Singer, S, Stone, J, Tung, K-Y, Turner, A, Walker, J, Walterfang, M, White, J, Benedetti, A, and Thombs, BD

Abstract

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.

Published
2020

3. Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Author

Brehaut E, Neupane D, Levis B, Wu Y, Sun Y, Krishnan A, He C, Bhandari PM, Negeri Z, Riehm KE, Rice DB, Azar M, Yan XW, Imran M, Chiovitti MJ, Saadat N, Cuijpers P, Ioannidis JPA, Markham S, Patten SB, Ziegelstein RC, Henry M, Ismail Z, Loiselle CG, Mitchell ND, Tonelli M, Boruff JT, Kloda LA, Beraldi A, Braeken APBM, Carter G, Clover K, Conroy RM, Cukor D, da Rocha E Silva CE, De Souza J, Downing MG, Feinstein A, Ferentinos PP, Fischer FH, Flint AJ, Fujimori M, Gallagher P, Goebel S, Jetté N, Julião M, Keller M, Kjærgaard M, Love AW, Löwe B, Martin-Santos R, Michopoulos I, Navines R, O'Rourke SJ, Öztürk A, Pintor L, Ponsford JL, Rooney AG, Sánchez-González R, Schwarzbold ML, Sharpe M, Simard S, Singer S, Stone J, Tung KY, Turner A, Walker J, Walterfang M, White J, Benedetti A, and Thombs BD

Subjects
Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Major classification, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prevalence, Depression epidemiology, Depressive Disorder, Major diagnosis
Abstract

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies.

Author

Wu Y, Levis B, Sun Y, Krishnan A, He C, Riehm KE, Rice DB, Azar M, Yan XW, Neupane D, Bhandari PM, Imran M, Chiovitti MJ, Saadat N, Boruff JT, Cuijpers P, Gilbody S, McMillan D, Ioannidis JPA, Kloda LA, Patten SB, Shrier I, Ziegelstein RC, Henry M, Ismail Z, Loiselle CG, Mitchell ND, Tonelli M, Al-Adawi S, Beraldi A, Braeken APBM, Büel-Drabe N, Bunevicius A, Carter G, Chen CK, Cheung G, Clover K, Conroy RM, Cukor D, da Rocha E Silva CE, Dabscheck E, Daray FM, Douven E, Downing MG, Feinstein A, Ferentinos PP, Fischer FH, Flint AJ, Fujimori M, Gallagher P, Gandy M, Goebel S, Grassi L, Härter M, Jenewein J, Jetté N, Julião M, Kim JM, Kim SW, Kjærgaard M, Köhler S, Loosman WL, Löwe B, Martin-Santos R, Massardo L, Matsuoka Y, Mehnert A, Michopoulos I, Misery L, Navines R, O'Donnell ML, Öztürk A, Peceliuniene J, Pintor L, Ponsford JL, Quinn TJ, Reme SE, Reuter K, Rooney AG, Sánchez-González R, Schwarzbold ML, Senturk Cankorur V, Shaaban J, Sharpe L, Sharpe M, Simard S, Singer S, Stafford L, Stone J, Sultan S, Teixeira AL, Tiringer I, Turner A, Walker J, Walterfang M, Wang LJ, White J, Wong DK, Benedetti A, and Thombs BD

Subjects
Female, Humans, Male, Probability, Depressive Disorder, Major diagnosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales standards
Abstract

Objective: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D)., Methods: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores., Results: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96))., Conclusion: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results