Dataset Information

Depression Screening Tools for Patients with Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Patients with kidney failure experience depression at rates higher than the general population. Despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ESRD Quality Incentive Program requirements for routine depression screening for patients with kidney failure, no clear guidance exists.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and other databases from inception to June 2020. Two investigators screened all abstracts and full text. We included studies assessing patients with kidney failure and compared a tool to a clinical interview or another validated tool (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory II). We abstracted data related to sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the curve. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.

Results

A total of 16 studies evaluated the performance characteristics of depression assessment tools for patients with kidney failure. The Beck Depression Inventory II was by far the best studied. A wide range of thresholds were reported. Shorter tools in the public domain such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 and Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (adults over 60) performed well but were not well studied. Short tools such as the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen may be a good option for an initial screen.

Conclusions

There is limited research evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of most screening tools for depression in patients with kidney failure, and existing studies may not be generalizable to US populations. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodology quality and/or reporting. Future research should target widely used, free tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9.

Clinical trial registry name and registration number

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020140227.

SUBMITTER: Kondo K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7769028 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies have reported an increase in the prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accuracy of screening tools may change with the prevalence and distribution of a disease in a population or sample: the "Spectrum Effect".MethodsFirst, we selected commonly used screening tools and developed search strategies for the inclusion of original studies during the pandemic. Second, we searched PsycINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from March 2020 to September 2022 to obtain original studies that investigated the accuracy of depression screening tools during the pandemic. We then searched these databases to identify meta-analyses summarizing the accuracy of these tools conducted before the pandemic and compared the optimal cut-offs for depression screening tools during the pandemic with those before.ResultFour original studies evaluating the optimal cut-offs for four screening tools (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI-II], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression [HADS-D], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 [GDS-4]) were published during the pandemic. Four meta-analyses summarizing these tools before the pandemic. We found that the optimal cut-off of BDI-II was 14 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with Type 2 diabetes) and 14.5 before the pandemic (17.6% depression prevalence, screening psychiatric, primary care, and healthy populations); HADS-D was 10 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with type 2 diabetes) and 7 before the pandemic (15.0% depression prevalence, screening medically ill patients); PHQ-9 was 11 during the pandemic (14.5% depression prevalence, screening university students) and 8 before the pandemic (10.9% depression prevalence, screening the unrestricted population), and GDS-4 was 1.8 during the pandemic (29.0% depression prevalence, screening adults seen in a memory clinic setting) and 3 before the pandemic (18.5% depression prevalence, screening older adults).ConclusionThe optimal cut-off for different screening tools may be sensitive to changes in study populations and reference standards. And potential spectrum effects that should be considered in post-COVID time which aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicidality and suicidal behavior among youth continues to increase significantly each year. Many of those who die by suicide interact with health services in the year before death. This systematic review sought to identify and describe empirically tested screening tools for suicidality in youth presenting to Emergency Departments (ED).Objective(1) To identify and compare existing tools used to screen for suicidality in children and adolescents who present to the ED and (2) to ascertain the prevalence of suicidality in pediatric populations found with these tools.MethodsWe searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for primary research studies that identified and evaluated screening tools for suicide risk in pediatric ED patients. A total of 7,597 publications published before August 25, 2021 met search criteria and were screened by two independent reviewers based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with any conflicts resolved via consensus meetings or an independent reviewer. A total of 110 papers were selected for full text review, of which 67 were excluded upon further inspection. Covidence was used to extract and synthesize results.Results43 articles were eligible for inclusion. Most studies (n = 33) took place in general pediatric EDs; the quality was generally high. Patients ranged from 4-24 years old, with most screening tested in patients 12 years and older. The most researched tools were the Ask-Suicide Screening Questions (ASQ) (n = 15), Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) (n = 12), Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) (n = 11), and the Risk of Suicide Questionnaire (RSQ) (n = 7). Where screening was applied to all patients, about one-fifth of pediatric ED patients screened positive; where suicide screening was applied to psychiatric patients only, over half screened positive. Positive screens were more likely to be female and older than negative screens and they were more likely to be assessed and admitted.ConclusionSeveral validated screening tools exist for the purpose of screening pediatric populations in EDs for suicidality. Such tools may help to support early detection and appropriate intervention for youth at risk of suicide.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=276328, identifier: 276328.

Project description:IntroductionAmblyopia is an important public health concern associated with functional vision loss and detrimental impact on the physical and mental well-being of children. The gold standard for diagnosis of amblyogenic conditions currently involves screening by orthoptists and/or ophthalmologists. The bloom of technology enables the use of home-based screening tools to detect these conditions at an early stage by the layperson in community, which could reduce the burden of screening in the community, especially during restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we propose a systematic review aiming to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of home-based screening tools compared with the existing gold standard.Methods and analysisWe aim to search for studies involving home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children aged under 18 years. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level 4 evidence and above will be included, without language or time restrictions. The following platforms will be searched from inception to 31 August 2021: PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers will identify studies for inclusion based on a screening questionnaire. The search and screening will start on 14 August 2021 until 1 October 2021. We aim to complete our data analysis by 30 November 2021. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies only. Our primary outcome measure is the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools, while secondary outcome measures include validity, feasibility, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness, where available.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary as no primary data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42021233511.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and describe the standardized interconception and preconception screening tools for reproductive health needs that are applicable in general outpatient clinical practice.Data sources and study settingThis systematic review identifies research on pregnancy intention screening and counseling tools, and standardized approaches to preconception and interconception care. We focus on tools designed for clinical settings, but also include research tools with potential for clinical implementation. These tools may include a component of contraceptive counseling, but those focusing solely on contraceptive counseling were excluded. Data were collected from studies done in the United States between January 2000 and March 2022.Study designWe performed a systematic literature search to generate a list of unique tools, assessed the quality of evidence supporting each tool, and described the peer-reviewed clinical applications of each. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise the quality of individual studies.Data collection/extraction methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for standardized preconception and interconception health screening tools published in English from January 2000 through March 2022. We used keywords "preconception care," "interconception care," "family planning," "contraception," "reproductive health services," and "counseling." Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, we screened titles and abstracts to identify studies for full text review.Principal findingsThe search resulted in 15,399 studies. After removing 4172 duplicates, we screened 11,227 titles/abstracts and advanced 207 for full-text review. From these, we identified 53 eligible studies representing 22 tools/standardized approaches, of which 10 had evidence from randomized clinical trials. These ranged widely in design, setting, and population of study.ConclusionsClinicians have a choice of tools when implementing standard reproductive screening services. A growing body of research can inform the selection of an appropriate tool, and more study is needed to establish effects on long-term patient outcomes.

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.