DSpace Repository

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lyubenova, Anita
dc.contributor.author Neupane, Dipika
dc.contributor.author Levis, Brooke
dc.contributor.author Wu, Yin
dc.contributor.author Sun, Ying
dc.contributor.author He, Chen
dc.contributor.author Krishnan, Ankur
dc.contributor.author Bhandari, Parash M.
dc.contributor.author Negeri, Zelalem
dc.contributor.author Imran, Mahrukh
dc.contributor.author Rice, Danielle B.
dc.contributor.author Azar, Marleine
dc.contributor.author Chiovitti, Matthew J.
dc.contributor.author Saadat, Nazanin
dc.contributor.author Riehm, Kira E.
dc.contributor.author Boruff, Jill T.
dc.contributor.author Ioannidis, John P. A.
dc.contributor.author Cuijpers, Pim
dc.contributor.author Gilbody, Simon
dc.contributor.author Kloda, Lorie A.
dc.contributor.author Patten, Scott B.
dc.contributor.author Shrier, Ian
dc.contributor.author Ziegelstein, Roy C.
dc.contributor.author Comeau, Liane
dc.contributor.author Mitchell, Nicholas D.
dc.contributor.author Tonelli, Marcello
dc.contributor.author Vigod, Simone N.
dc.contributor.author Aceti, Franca
dc.contributor.author Barnes, Jacqueline
dc.contributor.author Bavle, Amar D.
dc.contributor.author Beck, Cheryl T.
dc.contributor.author Bindt, Carola
dc.contributor.author Boyce, Philip M.
dc.contributor.author Bunevicius, Adomas
dc.contributor.author Chaudron, Linda H.
dc.contributor.author Favez, Nicolas
dc.contributor.author Figueiredo, Barbara
dc.contributor.author Garcia Esteve, Lluïsa
dc.contributor.author Giardinelli, Lisa
dc.contributor.author Helle, Nadine
dc.contributor.author Howard, Louise M.
dc.contributor.author Kohlhoff, Jane
dc.contributor.author Kusminskas, Laima
dc.contributor.author Kozinszky, Zoltán
dc.contributor.author Lelli, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.author Leonardou, Angeliki A.
dc.contributor.author Meuti, Valentina
dc.contributor.author Radoš, Sandra N.
dc.contributor.author García, Purificación N.
dc.contributor.author Pawlby, Susan J.
dc.contributor.author Quispel, Chantal
dc.contributor.author Robertson-Blackmore, Emma
dc.contributor.author Rochat, Tamsen J.
dc.contributor.author Sharp, Deborah J.
dc.contributor.author Siu, Bonnie W. M.
dc.contributor.author Stein, Alan
dc.contributor.author Stewart, Robert C.
dc.contributor.author Tadinac, Meri
dc.contributor.author Tandon, S. Darius
dc.contributor.author Tendais, Iva
dc.contributor.author Töreki, Annamária
dc.contributor.author Torres Giménez, Anna
dc.contributor.author Tran, Thach D.
dc.contributor.author Trevillion, Kylee
dc.contributor.author Turner, Katherine
dc.contributor.author Vega Dienstmaier, Johann Martín
dc.contributor.author Benedetti, Andrea
dc.contributor.author Thombs, Brett D.
dc.date.accessioned 2021-04-13T20:51:02Z
dc.date.available 2021-04-13T20:51:02Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/9205
dc.description.abstract OBJECTIVES: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. METHODS: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. RESULTS: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%-34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%-12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: -13.7%, 12.3%). CONCLUSION: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Wiley
dc.relation.ispartofseries International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject major depression en_US
dc.subject depression prevalence en_US
dc.subject Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale en_US
dc.subject individual participant data meta-analysis en_US
dc.subject structured clinical interview for DSM en_US
dc.title Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/review
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.24
dc.relation.issn 1557-0657


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics