- Title
- Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: an individual participant data meta-analysis
- Creator
- Brehaut, Eliana; Neupane, Dipika; Rice, Danielle B.; Azar, Marleine; Yan, Xin Wei; Imran, Mahrukh; Chiovitti, Matthew J.; Saadat, Nazanin; Cuijpers, Pim; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Markham, Sarah; Patten, Scott B.; Levis, Brooke; Ziegelstein, Roy C.; Henry, M; Ismail, Z; Loiselle, CG; Mitchell, ND; Tonelli, M; Boruff, JT; Kloda, LA; Beraldi, A; Braeken, APBM; Wu, Yin; Carter, Gregory; Clover, Kerrie; Conroy, RM; Cukor, D; da Rocha e Silva, CE; De Souza, J; Downing, MG; Feinstein, A; Ferentinos, PP; Fischer, FH; Sun, Ying; Flint, AJ; Fujimori, M; Gallagher, P; Goebel, S; Jetté, N; Julião, M; Keller, M; Kjærgaard, M; Love, AW; Löwe, B; Krishnan, Ankur; Martin-Santos, R; Michopoulos, I; Navines, R; O'Rourke, SJ; Öztürk, A; Pintor, L; Ponsford, JL; Rooney, AG; Sánchez-González, R; Schwarzbold, ML; He, Chen; Sharpe, M; Simard, S; Singer, S; Stone, J; Tung, KY; Turner, Alyna; Walker, J; Walterfang, M; White, J; Benedetti, A; Bhandari, Parash Mani; Thombs, BD; Negeri, Zelalem; Riehm, Kira E.
- Relation
- Journal of Psychosomatic Research Vol. 139, Issue December 2020, no. 110256
- Publisher Link
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2020
- Description
- Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.
- Subject
- depression; hospital anxiety and depression scale; individual participant data; meta-analysis; screening tools; SDG 3; Sustainable Development Goals
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1432829
- Identifier
- uon:39119
- Identifier
- ISSN:0022-3999
- Language
- eng
- Reviewed
- Hits: 256
- Visitors: 254
- Downloads: 0
Collections
Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format |
|---|