Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Mostra el registre complet Registre parcial de l'ítem

• dc.contributor.author Brehaut, Eliana
• dc.contributor.author Sánchez-González, Roberto
• dc.contributor.author Thombs, Brett D.
• dc.date.accessioned 2022-02-18T07:38:53Z
• dc.date.available 2022-02-18T07:38:53Z
• dc.date.issued 2020
• dc.description.abstract 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.
• dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
• dc.identifier.citation Brehaut E, Neupane D, Levis B, Wu Y, Sun Y, Krishnan A, et al. Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: an individual participant data meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2020 Dec; 139: 110256. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
• dc.identifier.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
• dc.identifier.issn 0022-3999
• dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10230/52523
• dc.language.iso eng
• dc.publisher Elsevier
• dc.rights © Elsevier http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256
• dc.rights.accessRights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
• dc.subject.keyword Depression
• dc.subject.keyword Hospital Anxiety and Depression
• dc.subject.keyword Scale Individual participant data
• dc.subject.keyword Meta-analysis
• dc.subject.keyword Screening tools
• dc.title Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: an individual participant data meta-analysis
• dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
• dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion