Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia

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

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author Wu, Yin
dc.contributor.author Levis, Brooke
dc.contributor.author Ioannidis, John P. A.
dc.contributor.author Benedetti, Andrea
dc.contributor.author Thombs, Brett D.
dc.date.accessioned 2021-04-13T20:50:59Z
dc.date.available 2021-04-13T20:50:59Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/9143
dc.description.abstract 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. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Karger
dc.relation.ispartofseries Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Classification en_US
dc.subject Depressive disorders en_US
dc.subject Diagnostic interviews en_US
dc.subject Individual participant data meta-analysis en_US
dc.subject Major depression en_US
dc.title Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1159/000509283
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.24
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.01.00
dc.relation.issn 1423-0348


Ficheros en el ítem

Ficheros Tamaño Formato Ver

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Buscar en el Repositorio


Listar

Panel de Control

Estadísticas