- Title
- Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: an individual participant data meta-analysis
- Creator
- Brehaut, Eliana; Neupane, Dipika; Levis, Brooke; Wu, Yin; Sun, Ying; Krishnan, Ankur; He, Chen; Bhandari, Parash Mani; Negeri, Zelalem; Riehm, Kira E.; 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.; Carter, Gregory; Clover, Kerrie
- 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
- Rights
- © 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
- Language
- eng
- Full Text
- Reviewed
- Hits: 6731
- Visitors: 6839
- Downloads: 119
Collections
Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| View Details Download | ATTACHMENT02 | Author final version | 780 KB | Adobe Acrobat PDF | View Details Download |