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.
Introduction. The ability to perform adequate positive pressure ventilation is necessary for neonatal clinical practice. However, there are few studies on the achievements of undergraduate students on this task. It is necessary to assess health science students’ adequate positive pressure ventilation because it is vital at the beginning of their clinical activity. Objective. To evaluate the cognitive and procedural ability related to adequate positive pressure ventilation performed by 6th year medicine students and 4th year obstetrics students at a public university in Lima, Peru. Methods. We surveyed 78 medical and obstetric students in their last years of studies within six months of taking a course on neonatal resuscitation that included positive pressure ventilation theory and practice. Participants voluntarily agreed to participate in this study. Previously, we validated the survey by asking three experienced neonatologists for their expert judgments on improving the survey. The survey consists of three theoretical questions as a cognitive assessment and three practice assessment criteria qualified by observing performance using neonatal manikins. Results. Medicine students had a better practical ability (p <0.001) than obstetrics students, and obstetrics students presented better theoretical knowledge (p = 0.019). However, both groups achieved limited performance within six months of taking the neonatal clinical practice course as 21.8% of all students passed both the theoretical and practical parts of this study. Conclusion. Participants from both schools require further training alternatives to achieve adequate positive pressure ventilation performance.
Introducción: Uno de los indicadores del impacto del establecimiento de prioridades en investigación en salud es la producción científica. EsSalud planteó nueve temas de investigación prioritarios (TIP) y 20 preguntas de investigación prioritarias (PIP) 2017-2019. Evaluamos el alineamiento a estas prioridades de investigación en los artículos científicos publicados con filiación de EsSalud durante 2017-2020, y caracterizamos aquellos financiados por esta institución. Material y Métodos: Análisis de los artículos científicos registrados en la base de datos de producción científica de EsSalud 2017-2020. Empleamos una metodología estandarizada y por duplicado para evaluar el alineamiento a los TIP y PIP 2017-2019 de EsSalud. La evaluación del alineamiento a las PIP sólo lo realizamos en artículos originales y resúmenes de congreso. Reportamos frecuencias de alineamiento a cada TIP y PIP, y frecuencia de alineamiento a por lo menos un TIP según características de los artículos. Además, se reportó las características de los artículos financiados por EsSalud. Resultados: Un total de 170 de 1283 artículos se alinearon a al menos un TIP. Ocho de las veinte PIP no fueron respondidas. Los artículos con autores que pertenecen o recibieron financiamiento del IETSI-EsSalud tuvieron la mayor tasa de alineación. Finalmente, los artículos financiados por EsSalud fueron principalmente estudios observacionales, guías de práctica clínica y revisiones sistemáticas. Conclusión: Los artículos científicos publicados con filiación de EsSalud durante el 2017 al 2020 tienen baja alineación con las prioridades de investigación de la institución. Por lo tanto, es necesario generar un proceso de gestión de implementación, seguimiento y evaluación de las prioridades de investigación en la institución.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.