Dataset Information

Accuracy of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)-4 and GDS-5 for the screening of depression among older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults.

Methods

Until May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology.

Results

Twenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68-0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80-0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69-0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions.

Conclusions

We found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.

SUBMITTER: Branez-Condorena A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8248624 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.Prospero registration numberCRD42018104329.

Project description:BackgroundIn older patients with cancer, depression is difficult to assess because of its heterogeneous clinical expression. The 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-4) is quick and easy to administer but has not been validated in this population. The present study was designed to test the diagnostic performance of the GDS-4 in a French cohort of older patients with cancer before treatment.Materials and methodsOur cross-sectional analysis of data from the Elderly Cancer Patient cohort covered all patients with cancer aged ≥70 years and referred for geriatric assessment at two centers in France between 2007 and 2018. The GDS-4's psychometric properties were evaluated against three different measures of depression: the geriatrician's clinical diagnosis (based on a semistructured interview), the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a cluster analysis. The scale's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated.ResultsIn a sample of 2,293 patients (median age, 81 years; women, 46%), the GDS-4's sensitivity and specificity for detecting physician-diagnosed depression were, respectively, 90% and 89%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.2 and 0.11, and the AUROC was 92%. When considering the subset of patients with data on all measures of depression, the sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, ≥90% and ≥72%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, ≥3.4 and ≤ 0.11, and the AUROC was ≥91%.ConclusionThe GDS-4 appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer.Implications for practiceConsidering the overlap between symptoms of cancer and symptoms of depression, depression is particularly difficult to assess in older geriatric oncology and is associated with poor outcomes; there is a need for a routine psychological screening. Self-report instruments like the 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. Asking four questions might enable physicians to screen older patients with cancer for depression and then guide them toward further clinical evaluation and appropriate care if required.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression in pregnant and postpartum women. DESIGN:Individual participant data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from inception to 3 October 2018). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Eligible datasets included EPDS scores and major depression classification based on validated diagnostic interviews. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate EPDS sensitivity and specificity compared with semi-structured, fully structured (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) excluded), and MINI diagnostic interviews separately using individual participant data. One stage meta-regression was used to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics. RESULTS:Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15?557 of 22?788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher, respectively. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women. CONCLUSIONS:An EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity; a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific. To identify pregnant and postpartum women with higher symptom levels, a cut-off of 13 or higher could be used. Lower cut-off values could be used if the intention is to avoid false negatives and identify most patients who meet diagnostic criteria. REGISTRATION:PROSPERO (CRD42015024785).

Project description:BackgroundDepression is the most common psychiatric disorder among older adults. Despite the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological therapies, many patients with late-life depression (LLD) are unable to access timely treatment. Telecare has been shown to be effective in addressing patients' psychosocial issues, while its effectiveness in serving patients with LLD remains unclear.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of telecare in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms and improving quality of life (QoL) in patients with LLD.MethodsDatabases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of telecare for LLD from database establishment to December 28, 2022.ResultsA total of 12 RCTs involving 1663 participants were identified in this study. The meta-analysis showed that (1) telecare significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with LLD compared to those in usual care (UC; standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.46, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.38; P<.001), with the best improvement observed within 3 months of intervention (SMD=-0.72, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.28; P<.001); (2) other scales appeared more effective than the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for LLD in telecare interventions (SMD=-0.65, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.35; P<.001); (3) telecare was more effective than telephone-based interventions for remote monitoring of LLD (SMD=-1.13, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.76; P<.001); (4) the reduction of depressive symptoms was more pronounced in patients with LLD with chronic conditions (SMD=-0.67, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.44; P<.001); (5) telecare was more effective for LLD in Europe and the Americas than in other regions (SMD=-0.73, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.47; P<.001); (6) telecare significantly reduced anxiety symptoms in patients with LLD (SMD=-0.53, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.33; P=.02); and (7) there was no significant improvement in the psychological components of QoL in patients with LLD compared to those receiving UC (SMD=0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.43; P=.80).ConclusionsTelecare is a promising modality of care for treatment, which can alleviate depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with LLD. Continued in-depth research into the effectiveness of telecare in treating depression could better identify where older patients would benefit from this intervention.