Dataset Information

Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends one or two questions as a possible screening method for depression. Ultra-short (one-, two-, three- or four-item) tests have appeal due to their simple administration but their accuracy has not been established.

Aim

To determine whether ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care.

Design of study

Pooled analysis and meta analysis.

Method

A literature search revealed 75 possible studies and from these, 22 STARD-compliant studies (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) involving ultra-short tests were entered in the analysis.

Results

Meta-analysis revealed a performance accuracy better than chance (P<0.001). More usefully for clinicians, pooled analysis of single-question tests revealed an overall sensitivity of 32.0% and specificity of 97.0% (positive predictive value [PPV] was 55.6% and negative predictive value [NPV] was 92.3%). For two- and three-item tests, overall sensitivity on pooled analysis was 73.7% and specificity was 74.7% with a PPV of only 38.3% but a pooled NPV of 93.0%. The Youden index for single-item and multiple item tests was 0.289 and 0.47 respectively, suggesting superiority of multiple item tests. Re-analysis examining only 'either or' strategies improved the 'rule in' ability of two- and three-question tests (sensitivity 79.4% and NPV 94.7%) but at the expense of being able to rule out a possible diagnosis if the result was negative.

Conclusion

A one-question test identifies only three out of every 10 patients with depression in primary care, thus unacceptable if relied on alone. Ultra-short two- or three-question tests perform better, identifying eight out of 10 cases. This is at the expense of a high false-positive rate (only four out of 10 cases with a positive score are actually depressed). Ultra-short tests appear to be, at best, a method for ruling out a diagnosis and should only be used when there are sufficient resources for second-stage assessment of those who screen positive.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2034175 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.

Mitchell Alex J AJ Coyne James C JC

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 20070201 535

<h4>Background</h4>Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends one or two questions as a possible screening method for depression. Ultra-short (one-, two-, three- or four-item) tests have appeal due to their simple administration but their accuracy has not been established.<h4>Aim</h4>To determine whether ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care.<h4>Design of study</h4>Pooled analysis and meta analysis.<h4>Method</h4>A ...[more]

PMID: 17263931

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression.DesignIndividual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015).Inclusion criteriaEligible 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.ResultsData 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..ConclusionsPHQ-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.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42014010673.

Project description:IntroductionAffective disorders and symptoms (ADS) are predictive of lower odds of quitting smoking. However, it is unknown which approach to assessing ADS best predicts cessation. This study compared a battery of ADS screening instruments with a single, self-report question on predicting cessation. Among those who self-reported ADS, we also examined if an additional question regarding whether participants believed the condition(s) might interfere with their ability to quit added predictive utility to the single-item question.MethodsParticipants (N = 2637) enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of web-based smoking treatments completed a battery of five ADS screening instruments and answered a single-item question about having ADS. Those with a positive self-report on the single-item question were also asked about their interference beliefs. The primary outcome was complete-case, self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months.ResultsBoth assessment approaches significantly predicted cessation. Screening positive for ≥ one ADS in the battery was associated with 23% lower odds of quitting than not screening positive for any (p = .023); those with a positive self-report on the single-item had 39% lower odds of quitting than self-reporting no mental health conditions (p < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the two assessment approaches were similar (p = .136). Adding the interference belief question to the single-item assessment significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (p = .042).ConclusionsThe single-item question assessing ADS had as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than the battery of screening instruments for identifying participants at risk for failing to quit smoking. Adding a question about interference beliefs significantly increased the predictive utility of the single-item question.ImplicationsThis is the first study to demonstrate that a single-item question assessing ADS has at least as much predictive validity, and possibly more, than a battery of validated screening instruments for identifying smokers at highest risk for cessation failure. This study also demonstrates adding a question about interference beliefs significantly adds to the predictive utility of a single, self-report question about mental health conditions. Findings from this study can be used to inform decisions regarding how to assess ADS in the context of tobacco treatment settings.

Dataset Information

Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.

Background

Aim

Design of study

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets