Dataset Information

Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the proportion of original studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression that appropriately exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression and to determine whether these systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluate possible bias from the inclusion of such patients.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, ISI, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1 January 2005 to 29 October 2009.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in any language that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression.

Results

Only eight of 197 (4%) unique publications from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically excluded patients who already had a diagnosis of or were receiving treatment for depression. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses commented on possible bias from the inclusion of such patients, even though 10 reviews used quality assessment tools with items to rate risk of bias from composition of the sample of patients.

Conclusions

Studies of the accuracy of screening tools for depression rarely exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression, a potential bias that is not evaluated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This could result in inflated estimates of accuracy on which clinical practice and preventive care guidelines are often based, a problem that takes on greater importance as the rate of diagnosed and treated depression in the population increases.

SUBMITTER: Thombs BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3191850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in stage-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD-5) and upwards of one third of people receiving haemodialysis (HD) are frail. While many frailty screening methods are available in both uremic and non-uremic populations, their implementation in clinical settings is often challenged by time and resource constraints. In this study, we explored the diagnostic accuracy of time-efficient screening tools in people receiving HD.MethodsA convenience sample of 76 people receiving HD [mean age = 61.1 years (SD = 14), 53.9% male] from three Renal Units were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Frailty was diagnosed by means of the Fried phenotype. Physical performance-based screening tools encompassed handgrip strength, 15-ft gait speed, timed up and go (TUG), and five-repetition sit to stand (STS-5) tests. In addition, participants completed the SF-36 Health Survey, the short-form international physical activity questionnaire and the Tinetti falls efficacy scale (FES) as further frailty-related measures. Outcome measures included the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The diagnostic performance of screening tools in assessing fall-risk was also investigated.ResultsOverall, 36.8% of participants were classified as frail. All the examined instruments could significantly discriminate frailty status in the study population. Gait speed [AUC = 0.89 (95%CI: 0.81-0.98), sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 93%] and TUG [AUC = 0.90 (95%CI: 0.80-0.99), sensitivity = 89%, specificity = 85%] exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy. There was a significant difference in gait speed AUC (20%, p = 0.013) between participants aged 65 years or older (n = 36) and those under 65 years of age (n = 40), with better discriminating performance in the younger sub-group. The Tinetti FES was the only instrument showing good diagnostic accuracy (AUCs≥0.80) for both frailty (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 79%) and fall-risk (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 71%) screening.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional study revealed that time- and cost-efficient walking performance measures can accurately be used for frailty-screening purposes in people receiving HD. While self-selected gait speed had an excellent performance in people under 65 years of age, TUG may be a more suitable screening method for elderly patients (≥65 years). The Tinetti FES may be a clinically useful test when physical testing is not achievable.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Robust diagnosis of dementia requires an understanding of the accuracy of the available diagnostic tests. Informant questionnaires are frequently used to assess for dementia in clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have sought to establish the diagnostic test accuracy of various dementia informant screening tools. However, most reviews to date have focused on a single diagnostic tool and this does not address which tool is 'best'. A key aim of the overview of systematic reviews is to present a disparate evidence base in a single, easy to access platform. METHODS:We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews in which we 'review the systematic reviews' of diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating informant questionnaires for dementia. As an overview of systematic reviews of test accuracy is a relatively novel approach, we will use this review to explore methods for visual representation of complex data, for highlighting evidence gaps and for indirect comparative analyses. We will create a list of informant tools by consulting with dementia experts. We will search 6 databases (EMBASE (OVID); Health and Psychosocial Instruments (OVID); Medline (OVID); CINAHL (EBSCO); PSYCHinfo (EBSCO) and the PROSPERO registry of review protocols) to identify systematic reviews that describe the diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for dementia. We will assess review quality using the AMSTAR-2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) and assess reporting quality using PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies) checklists. We will collate the identified reviews to create an 'evidence map' that highlights where evidence does and does not exist in relation to informant questionnaires. We will pool sensitivity and specificity data via meta-analysis to generate a diagnostic test accuracy summary statistic for each informant questionnaire. If data allow, we will perform a statistical comparison of the diagnostic test accuracy of each informant questionnaire using a network approach. DISCUSSION:Our overview of systematic reviews will provide a concise summary of the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools and highlight areas where evidence is currently lacking in this regard. It will also apply network meta-analysis techniques to a new area.