Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Wu, Yin; Levis, Brooke; Sun, Ying; Krishnan, Ankur; He, Chen; Riehm, Kira E.; Rice, Danielle B; Azar, Marleine; Yan, Xin Wei; Neupane, Dipika; Bhandari, Parash Mani; Imran, Mahrukh; Chiovitti, Matthew J.; Saadat, Nazanin; Boruff, Jill; Cuijpers, Pim; Gilbody, Simon; McMillan, Dean; Ioannidis, John P. A.; ., .; Patten, Scott B.; Shrier, Ian; Ziegelstein, Roy C.; Henry, Mélissa; Ismail, Zahinoor; Loiselle, Carmen G.; Mitchell, Nicholas; Tonelli, Marcello; Al-Adawi, Samir; Beraldi, Anna; Braeken, Anna P. B. M.; Büel-Drabe, Natalie; Bunevičius, Adomas; Carter, Gregory; Chen, Chih Ken; Cheung, Gary; Clover, Kerrie; Conroy, Ronán; Cukor, Daniel; Silva, Carlos E. da Rocha e; Dabscheck, Eli; Daray, Federico Manuel; Douven, Elles; Downing, Marina; Feinstein, Anthony; Ferentinos, Panagiotis; Fischer, Felix; Flint, Alastair J.; Fujimori, Maiko; Gallagher, Pamela; Gandy, Milena; Goebel, Simone; Grassi, Luigi; Härter, Martin; Jenewein, Josef; Jetté, Nathalie; Julião, Miguel; Kim, Jae Min; Kim, Sung Wan; Kjærgaard, Marie; Köhler, Sebastian; Loosman, Wim L.; Löwe, Bernd; Martín‐Santos, Rocío; Massardo, Loreto; Matsuoka, Yutaka; Mehnert, Anja; Michopoulos, Ioannis; Miséry, Laurent; Navinés, Ricard; O’Donnell, Meaghan; Öztürk, Ahmet; Pečeliūnienė, Jūratė; Pintor, Luís; Ponsford, Jennie Louise; Quinn, Terence J; Rème, Silje Endresen; Reuter, Katrin; Rooney, Alasdair G; Sánchez‐González, Roberto; Schwarzbold, Marcelo Libório; Cankorur, Vesile Şentürk; Shaaban, Juwita; Sharpe, Louise; Sharpe, Michael; Simard, Sébastien; Schnittger, Susanne; Stafford, Lesley; Stone, Jon; Sultan, Serge; Teixeira, Antônio Lúcio; Tiringer, István; Turner, Alyna; Walker, Jane; Walterfang, Mark; Wang, Liang‐Jen; White, Jennifer; Wong, Dana; Benedetti, Andrea; Thombs, Brett D.

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109892

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reference standard categories included semi-structured interviews (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders (SCID),32 Clinical Interview Schedule,33 Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies34), fully structured interviews, excluding the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI3536; Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI),37 Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised38), and the MINI. We analysed studies that used different types of reference standards separately because we previously found that, controlling for depressive symptom levels, the MINI might classify depression more than other diagnostic interviews, and the CIDI might classify more participants with low level symptoms as having depression but fewer with high level symptoms 161718. These findings are consistent with the design of the different types of diagnostic interviews.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The results were not pooled for pregnant women because there were too few studies, and no subgroup analyses were conducted among postpartum women because primary studies did not report the necessary data. Estimates were not done separately for different types of reference standards, although important differences exist in design and structure, and in the likelihood of major depression classification between different diagnostic interviews 161718. Therefore, the optimal cut-off value for screening remains unknown, and whether different cut-off values are needed for women with different characteristics needs to be determined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Levis

Negeri

et al. 2020

BMJ

Self Cite

418

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Levis

Negeri

et al. 2020

BMJ

Self Cite

418

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Semi-structured interviews are designed for administration by trained professionals with diagnostic experience; evaluators can interject queries and use their clinical judgment to determine whether symptoms are present and significant [1][2][3]. The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID) [4] is the most commonly used semi-structured interview in depression research [5][6][7]. Fully structured interviews, in contrast, are designed for lay-interviewer administration to reduce the cost of clinician-administered interviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are intended to maximize reliability but may reduce validity [8]. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) [8] is the most commonly used fully structured interview in depression research [5][6][7]. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) [9,10], also common in depression research, is a very brief, fully structured interview, originally described by its developers as a screening interview and intended to be over-inclusive [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses

Levis

Ioannidis

et al. 2020

Psychother Psychosom

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79–1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52–0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.

show abstract

“…These tools were developed to detect nonspecific symptoms of anxiety, and many of the studies cited in this review have been validated against other screening instruments rather than clinical diagnoses that may be obtained through tools such as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐5 (151) or the less resource‐intensive Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (152). The use of different diagnostic reference standards across various validation studies may result in differential detection of clinically significant anxiety and depression (153,154). Although it may be more resource intensive, additional studies examining the use of these screening measures compared with gold‐standard structured clinical assessments, particularly in rheumatic diseases, would be helpful in determining the clinical significance of anxiety symptoms exhibited by patients with rheumatic diseases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of Anxiety in Rheumatic Diseases

Kwan

Bingham

Touma

2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Cited by 39 publications

References 17 publications

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses

Measures of Anxiety in Rheumatic Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About