Dataset Information

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression.

Methods

We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques.

Results

Sixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20).

Interpretation

If used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

SUBMITTER: Gilbody S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2276549 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis.

Gilbody Simon S Sheldon Trevor T House Allan A

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20080401 8

<h4>Background</h4>Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments ...[more]

PMID: 18390942

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidance 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.AimTo determine whether ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care.Design of studyPooled analysis and meta analysis.MethodA 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.ResultsMeta-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.ConclusionA 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has a guideline on screening for depression among adults 18 years of age or older at average or high risk for depression. To provide evidence for an update of this guideline, we evaluated the literature on the effectiveness of screening for depression in adults.MethodsFor the period 1994 to May 23, 2012, we searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Randomized controlled trials, observational studies and systematic reviews with evidence for the benefits or harms of screening for depression were eligible for inclusion. We performed screening for relevance, extraction of data, analysis of risk of bias and quality assessments in duplicate. We used the generic inverse variance method to conduct a meta-analysis. To determine confidence in the effect, we analyzed the results according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.ResultsFive quasi-experimental studies (before-after design with a nonrandomized control group) met the inclusion criteria for this review. These studies reported on the effect of community-based screening for depression, with follow-up on the risk of suicide completion, for older residents in regions of rural Japan with high suicide rates. Meta-analysis showed that the screening program had a protective effect on the overall incidence of suicide completion (ratio of rate ratios [RRR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.78). When sex was considered, the RRR indicated a significantly lower rate of suicide among women (RRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21-0.66) but not among men (RRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35-1.27). The overall GRADE rating applied to this evidence indicated very low quality. No studies addressing the harms of screening for depression met the inclusion criteria for the review.InterpretationThere is very limited research evidence allowing conclusions about the effectiveness of screening for depression in either average-risk or high-risk populations.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.MethodsA literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.ResultsHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression subscale (HADS-D)???8, HADS-D ?11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies???16, and (semi-)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI?=?16-19%), 8% (95% CI?=?7-9%), 24% (95% CI?=?21-26%), and 13% (95% CI?=?11-15%) (p?<?0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI?=?11-17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI?=?25-30%), measured by self-report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments were 9% (95% CI?=?7-11%) and 21% (95% CI?=?19-24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI?=?5-12%) and 15% (95% CI?=?13-17%)???1?year after diagnosis.ConclusionsPooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase. © 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Project description:BackgroundA major barrier to improving perinatal mental health in Africa is the lack of locally validated tools for identifying probable cases of perinatal depression or for measuring changes in depression symptom severity. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the reliability and validity of instruments to assess perinatal depression in African settings.Methods and findingsOf 1,027 records identified through searching 7 electronic databases, we reviewed 126 full-text reports. We included 25 unique studies, which were disseminated in 26 journal articles and 1 doctoral dissertation. These enrolled 12,544 women living in nine different North and sub-Saharan African countries. Only three studies (12%) used instruments developed specifically for use in a given cultural setting. Most studies provided evidence of criterion-related validity (20 [80%]) or reliability (15 [60%]), while fewer studies provided evidence of construct validity, content validity, or internal structure. The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS), assessed in 16 studies (64%), was the most frequently used instrument in our sample. Ten studies estimated the internal consistency of the EPDS (median estimated coefficient alpha, 0.84; interquartile range, 0.71-0.87). For the 14 studies that estimated sensitivity and specificity for the EPDS, we constructed 2 x 2 tables for each cut-off score. Using a bivariate random-effects model, we estimated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.99) and a pooled specificity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-0.88) at a cut-off score of ? 9, with higher cut-off scores yielding greater specificity at the cost of lower sensitivity.ConclusionsThe EPDS can reliably and validly measure perinatal depression symptom severity or screen for probable postnatal depression in African countries, but more validation studies on other instruments are needed. In addition, more qualitative research is needed to adequately characterize local understandings of perinatal depression-like syndromes in different African contexts.

Project description:BackgroundActive case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is the cornerstone case-finding strategy in India's national TB policy. However, ACF strategies are highly diverse and pose implementation challenges in routine programming. We reviewed the literature to characterise ACF in India; assess the yield of ACF for different risk groups, screening locations, and screening criteria; and estimate losses to follow-up (LTFU) in screening and diagnosis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library to identify studies with ACF for TB in India from November 2010 to December 2020. We calculated 1) weighted mean number needed to screen (NNS) stratified by risk group, screening location, and screening strategy; and 2) the proportion of screening and pre-diagnostic LTFU. We assessed risk of bias using the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies.FindingsOf 27,416 abstracts screened, we included 45 studies conducted in India. Most studies were from southern and western India and aimed to diagnose pulmonary TB at the primary health level in the public sector after screening. There was considerable heterogeneity in risk groups screened and ACF methodology across studies. Of the 17 risk groups identified, the lowest weighted mean NNS was seen in people with HIV (21, range 3-89, n=5), tribal populations (50, range 40-286, n=3), household contacts of people with TB (50, range 3-undefined, n=12), people with diabetes (65, range 21-undefined, n=3), and rural populations (131, range 23-737, n=5). ACF at facility-based screening (60, range 3-undefined, n=19) had lower weighted mean NNS than at other screening locations. Using the WHO symptom screen (135, 3-undefined, n=20) had lower weighted mean NNS than using criteria of abnormal chest x-ray or any symptom. Median screening and pre-diagnosis loss-to-follow-up was 6% (IQR 4.1%, 11.3%, range 0-32.5%, n=12) and 9.5% (IQR 2.4%, 34.4%, range 0-86.9%, n=27), respectively.InterpretationFor ACF to be impactful in India, its design must be based on contextual understanding. The narrow evidence base available currently is insufficient for effectively targeting ACF programming in a large and diverse country. Achieving case-finding targets in India requires evidence-based ACF implementation.FundingWHO Global TB Programme.

Dataset Information

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets