Dataset Information

Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Selectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10-13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs.

Methods

We conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs.

Results

For the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: -0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10.

Conclusion

Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.

SUBMITTER: Neupane D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8412225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression.DesignIndividual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015).Inclusion criteriaEligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model.ResultsData were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age..ConclusionsPHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42014010673.

Project description:ObjectiveTo update a previous individual participant data meta-analysis and determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the most commonly used depression screening tool in general practice, for detecting major depression overall and by study or participant subgroups.DesignSystematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Medline In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science searched through 9 May 2018.Review methodsEligible studies administered the PHQ-9 and classified current major depression status using a validated semistructured diagnostic interview (designed for clinician administration), fully structured interview (designed for lay administration), or the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; a brief interview designed for lay administration). A bivariate random effects meta-analytic model was used to obtain point and interval estimates of pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity at cut-off values 5-15, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), fully structured interviews (eg, Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and the MINI. Meta-regression was used to investigate whether PHQ-9 accuracy correlated with reference standard categories and participant characteristics.ResultsData from 44 503 total participants (27 146 additional from the update) were obtained from 100 of 127 eligible studies (42 additional studies; 79% eligible studies; 86% eligible participants). Among studies with a semistructured interview reference standard, pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) at the standard cut-off value of ≥10, which maximised combined sensitivity and specificity, were 0.85 (0.79 to 0.89) and 0.85 (0.82 to 0.87), respectively. Specificity was similar across reference standards, but sensitivity in studies with semistructured interviews was 7-24% (median 21%) higher than with fully structured reference standards and 2-14% (median 11%) higher than with the MINI across cut-off values. Across reference standards and cut-off values, specificity was 0-10% (median 3%) higher for men and 0-12 (median 5%) higher for people aged 60 or older.ConclusionsResearchers and clinicians could use results to determine outcomes, such as total number of positive screens and false positive screens, at different PHQ-9 cut-off values for different clinical settings using the knowledge translation tool at www.depressionscreening100.com/phq.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42014010673.

Project description:Background:Screening instruments for antenatal depression vary in performance. This study aimed at assessing the performance of a range of screening instruments in detecting depressive symptoms in antenatal clinics in Blantyre district, Malawi. Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted to screen for depression among women attending 8 selected antenatal clinics in Blantyre district using 3-item screener, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-15 (HSCL-15), Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ) and Pregnancy Risk Questionnaire (PRQ). The instruments were administered to a random sample of 480 pregnant women. Data were analysed using SPSS 22.0 testing for performance differences in proportions of screen positives and how screen positive results might differ by particular variables. Results:The prevalence estimates yielded by screening instruments ranged from 12.9% (SRQ) to 42.1% (3-item screener). There were no significant differences in prevalence estimates for EPDS, HSCL-15, PRQ and SRQ. There were performance differences in the proportions of screen positives with significant systematic differences between proportions of screen positives of PRQ and SRQ (p<.001), EPDS and HSCL-15 (p=.001), HSCL and PRQ (p<.001), and EPDS and SRQ (p<.001). Screen positive results on HSCL-15, PRQ, 3-item screener and EPDS were found to differ by variables such as "not being supported by partner" which resulted in respondents having ?3 times chances to screen positive on these four instruments. The screen positive results on SRQ were found not to differ by age, education, employment status, marital status, setting, gestation and number of pregnancies. Conclusions:There were minimal variations in the performance of the EPDS, SRQ and HSCL-15 as standard public health screening instruments. However, systematic differences between proportions of screen positives exist and screen positive results from these instruments differed by demographics. It is important to validate screening instruments against a gold standard to ensure relevant clinical outcomes for pregnant women with depression.

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the association between long working hours and alcohol use.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies and unpublished individual participant data.Data sourcesA systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases in April 2014 for published studies, supplemented with manual searches. Unpublished individual participant data were obtained from 27 additional studies.Review methodsThe search strategy was designed to retrieve cross sectional and prospective studies of the association between long working hours and alcohol use. Summary estimates were obtained with random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were examined with meta-regression.ResultsCross sectional analysis was based on 61 studies representing 333,693 participants from 14 countries. Prospective analysis was based on 20 studies representing 100,602 participants from nine countries. The pooled maximum adjusted odds ratio for the association between long working hours and alcohol use was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.18) in the cross sectional analysis of published and unpublished data. Odds ratio of new onset risky alcohol use was 1.12 (1.04 to 1.20) in the analysis of prospective published and unpublished data. In the 18 studies with individual participant data it was possible to assess the European Union Working Time Directive, which recommends an upper limit of 48 hours a week. Odds ratios of new onset risky alcohol use for those working 49-54 hours and ≥ 55 hours a week were 1.13 (1.02 to 1.26; adjusted difference in incidence 0.8 percentage points) and 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25; adjusted difference in incidence 0.7 percentage points), respectively, compared with working standard 35-40 hours (incidence of new onset risky alcohol use 6.2%). There was no difference in these associations between men and women or by age or socioeconomic groups, geographical regions, sample type (population based v occupational cohort), prevalence of risky alcohol use in the cohort, or sample attrition rate.ConclusionsIndividuals whose working hours exceed standard recommendations are more likely to increase their alcohol use to levels that pose a health risk.