Post-MI depression is associated with a 1.6- to 2.7-fold increased risk of impaired outcomes within 24 months. This association has been relatively stable over the past 25 years.

BackgroundThe association between depression after myocardial infarction and increased risk of mortality and cardiac morbidity may be due to cardiac disease severity.AimsTo combine original data from studies on the association between post-infarction depression and prognosis into one database, and to investigate to what extent such depression predicts prognosis independently of disease severity.MethodAn individual patient data meta-analysis of studies was conducted using multilevel, multivariable Cox regression analyses.ResultsSixteen studies participated, creating a database of 10 175 post-infarction cases. Hazard ratios for post-infarction depression were 1.32 (95% CI 1.26–1.38, P<0.001) for all-cause mortality and 1.19 (95% CI 1.14–1.24, P<0.001) for cardiovascular events. Hazard ratios adjusted for disease severity were attenuated by 28% and 25% respectively.ConclusionsThe association between depression following myocardial infarction and prognosis is attenuated after adjustment for cardiac disease severity. Still, depression remains independently associated with prognosis, with a 22% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 13% increased risk of cardiovascular events per standard deviation in depression z-score.

Differentiated instruction is a pedagogical-didactical approach that provides teachers with a starting point for meeting students' diverse learning needs. Although differentiated instruction has gained a lot of attention in practice and research, not much is known about the status of the empirical evidence and its benefits for enhancing student achievement in secondary education. The current review sets out to provide an overview of the theoretical conceptualizations of differentiated instruction as well as prior findings on its effectiveness. Then, by means of a systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2016, empirical evidence on the effects of within-class differentiated instruction for secondary school students' academic achievement is evaluated and summarized. After a rigorous search and selection process, only 14 papers about 12 unique empirical studies on the topic were selected for review. A narrative description of the selected papers shows that differentiated instruction has been operationalized in many different ways. The selection includes studies on generic teacher trainings for differentiated instruction, ability grouping and tiering, individualization, mastery learning, heterogeneous grouping, and remediation in flipped classroom lessons. The majority of the studies show small to moderate positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. Summarized effect sizes across studies range from d = +0.741 to +0.509 (omitting an outlier). These empirical findings give some indication of the possible benefits of differentiated instruction. However, they also point out that there are still severe knowledge gaps. More research is needed before drawing convincing conclusions regarding the effectiveness and value of different approaches to differentiated instruction for secondary school classes.

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.