Depression Screening Tools for Patients with Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveDepression screening among children and adolescents is controversial, and no clinical trials have evaluated benefits and harms of screening programs. A requirement for effective screening is a screening tool with demonstrated high accuracy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of depression screening instruments to detect major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents.MethodData sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HaPI, and LILACS databases from 2006 to September 30, 2015. Eligible studies compared a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for MDD and reported accuracy data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2.ResultsWe identified 17 studies with data on 20 depression screening tools. Few studies examined the accuracy of the same screening tools. Cut-off scores identified as optimal were inconsistent across studies. Width of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for sensitivity ranged from 9% to 55% (median 32%), and only 1 study had a lower bound 95% CI ≥80%. For specificity, 95% CI width ranged from 2% to 27% (median 9%), and 3 studies had a lower bound ≥90%. Methodological limitations included small sample sizes, exploratory data analyses to identify optimal cut-offs, and the failure to exclude children and adolescents already diagnosed or treated for depression.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that any depression screening tool and cut-off accurately screens for MDD in children and adolescents. Screening could lead to overdiagnosis and the consumption of scarce health care resources.
| S-EPMC5564894 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9314735 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10729515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHeart failure (HF) is highly prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and is strongly associated with mortality in these patients. However, the treatment of HF in this population is largely unclear.Study designWe conducted a systematic integrative review of the literature to assess the current evidence of HF treatment in CKD patients, searching electronic databases in April 2014. Synthesis used narrative methods.Setting and populationWe focused on adults with a primary diagnosis of CKD and HF.Selection criteria for studiesWe included studies of any design, quantitative or qualitative.InterventionsHF treatment was defined as any formal means taken to improve the symptoms of HF and/or the heart structure and function abnormalities.OutcomesMeasures of all kinds were considered of interest.ResultsOf 1,439 results returned by database searches, 79 articles met inclusion criteria. A further 23 relevant articles were identified by hand searching.ConclusionsControl of fluid overload, the use of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and optimization of dialysis appear to be the most important methods to treat HF in CKD and ESRD patients. Aldosterone antagonists and digitalis glycosides may additionally be considered; however, their use is associated with significant risks. The role of anemia correction, control of CKD-mineral and bone disorder, and cardiac resynchronization therapy are also discussed.
| S-EPMC4052068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, ISI, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1 January 2005 to 29 October 2009.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews and meta-analyses in any language that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression.ResultsOnly 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.ConclusionsStudies 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.
| S-EPMC3191850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPast studies have identified poor rates of detection of mental illness among inmates. Consequently, mental health screening is a common feature to various correctional mental health strategies and best practice guidelines. However, there is little guidance to support the selection of an appropriate tool. This systematic review compared the sensitivity and specificity of mental health screening tools among adult jail or prison populations.MethodsA systematic review of MEDLINE and PsycINFO up to 2011, with additional studies identified from a search of reference lists. Only studies involving adult jail or prison populations, with an independent measure of mental illness, were included. Studies in forensic settings to determine fitness to stand trial or criminal responsibility were excluded. Twenty-four studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review. All articles were coded by two independent authors. Study quality was coded by the lead author.ResultsTwenty-two screening tools were identified. Only six tools have replication studies: the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (BJMHS), the Correctional Mental Health Screen for Men (CMHS-M), the Correctional Mental Health Screen for Women (CMHS-W), the England Mental Health Screen (EMHS), the Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT), and the Referral Decision Scale (RDS). A descriptive summary is provided in lieu of use of meta-analytic techniques due to the lack of replication studies and methodological variations across studies.ConclusionsThe BJMHS, CMHS-M, CMHS-W, EMHS and JSAT appear to be the most promising tools. Future research should consider important contextual factors in the implementation of a screening tool that have received little attention. Randomized or quasi-randomized trials are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of screening to improve the detection of mental illness compared to standard practices.
| S-EPMC4231452 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8404433 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5967596 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3986010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Language disorder is one of the most prevalent developmental disorders and is associated with long-term sequelae. However, routine screening is still controversial and is not universally part of early childhood health surveillance. Evidence concerning the detection accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening for language disorders remains inadequate, as shown in a previous review. In October 2020, a systematic review was conducted to investigate the accuracy of available screening tools and the potential sources of variability. A literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, ComDisCome, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies describing, developing, or validating screening tools for language disorder under the age of 6 were included. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate risk of bias in individual studies. Meta-analyses were performed on the reported accuracy of the screening tools examined. The performance of the screening tools was explored by plotting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. The effects of the proxy used in defining language disorders, the test administrators, the screening-diagnosis interval and age of screening on screening accuracy were investigated by meta-regression. Of the 2,366 articles located, 47 studies involving 67 screening tools were included. About one-third of the tests (35.4%) achieved at least fair accuracy, while only a small proportion (13.8%) achieved good accuracy. HSROC curves revealed a remarkable variation in sensitivity and specificity for the three major types of screening, which used the child's actual language ability, clinical markers, and both as the proxy, respectively. None of these three types of screening tools achieved good accuracy. Meta-regression showed that tools using the child's actual language as the proxy demonstrated better sensitivity than that of clinical markers. Tools using long screening-diagnosis intervals had a lower sensitivity than those using short screening-diagnosis intervals. Parent report showed a level of accuracy comparable to that of those administered by trained examiners. Screening tools used under and above 4yo appeared to have similar sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, there are still gaps between the available screening tools for language disorders and the adoption of these tools in population screening. Future tool development can focus on maximizing accuracy and identifying metrics that are sensitive to the dynamic nature of language development.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=210505, PROSPERO: CRD42020210505.
| S-EPMC8904415 | biostudies-literature