Dataset Information

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.

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.

SUBMITTER: Lyubenova A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7992289 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Lyubenova Anita A Neupane Dipika D Levis Brooke B Wu Yin Y Sun Ying Y He Chen C Krishnan Ankur A Bhandari Parash M PM Negeri Zelalem Z Imran Mahrukh M Rice Danielle B DB Azar Marleine M Chiovitti Matthew J MJ Saadat Nazanin N Riehm Kira E KE Boruff Jill T JT Ioannidis John P A JPA Cuijpers Pim P Gilbody Simon S Kloda Lorie A LA Patten Scott B SB Shrier Ian I Ziegelstein Roy C RC Comeau Liane L Mitchell Nicholas D ND Tonelli Marcello M Vigod Simone N SN Aceti Franca F Barnes Jacqueline J Bavle Amar D AD Beck Cheryl T CT Bindt Carola C Boyce Philip M PM Bunevicius Adomas A Chaudron Linda H LH Favez Nicolas N Figueiredo Barbara B Garcia-Esteve Lluïsa L Giardinelli Lisa L Helle Nadine N Howard Louise M LM Kohlhoff Jane J Kusminskas Laima L Kozinszky Zoltán Z Lelli Lorenzo L Leonardou Angeliki A AA Meuti Valentina V Radoš Sandra N SN García Purificación N PN Pawlby Susan J SJ Quispel Chantal C Robertson-Blackmore Emma E Rochat Tamsen J TJ Sharp Deborah J DJ Siu Bonnie W M BWM Stein Alan A Stewart Robert C RC Tadinac Meri M Tandon S Darius SD Tendais Iva I Töreki Annamária A Torres-Giménez Anna A Tran Thach D TD Trevillion Kylee K Turner Katherine K Vega-Dienstmaier Johann M JM Benedetti Andrea A Thombs Brett D BD

International journal of methods in psychiatric research 20201022 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 33089942

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is widely used in many countries to screen women for depression in the perinatal period. However, across studies the psychometric properties and cutoff scores of the EPDS have varied considerably; potentially due to different depression criteria and diagnostic systems being used. Therefore, we validated the Danish EPDS against a depression diagnosis according to both DSM-5 and ICD-10. Furthermore, we examined whether the Danish EPDS is multidimensional, as it has previously been suggested. METHODS:Women (N = 324) were recruited after routine screenings with the EPDS between 2 and 10 months postpartum (T1). At a subsequent home visit (T2), the EPDS and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 were administered. Diagnostic interviews were audio recorded to enable subsequent coding for ICD-10 diagnoses and inter-rater reliability analysis. A two-phase stratified sampling strategy with three sampling categories (EPDS-score at T1) was used. Using the distribution of 4931 T1 EPDS-scores from the same population from which we sampled the participants, we used sampling weighing to reweight the sample. The calculation of weights was based upon the mother's sampling category at T1 (i.e. the probability of being sampled) and the weights were applied when assessing the receiver operation characteristics (ROCs) of the EPDS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the ROC curve were computed from the reweighted data for all relevant cutoff values. CIs were computed by embedding the calculations in a weighted logistic regression. Exploratory factor analysis was done using oblique rotation. Parallel analysis was used to assess the number of factors. RESULTS:A score of 11 or more was found to be the optimal cutoff for depression according to both DSM-5 and ICD-10 criteria. Factor analysis suggested that the Danish EPDS consists of three factors, including an 'anxiety factor'. CONCLUSIONS:The Danish EPDS has reasonable sensitivity and specificity at a cutoff score of 11 or more. There are no notable differences with respect to using ICD-10 or DSM-5 criteria for depression in terms of optimal cutoff. The variation in cutoff scores is likely to be due to cultural variations in the expression of depressive symptoms.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression in pregnant and postpartum women.DesignIndividual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from inception to 3 October 2018).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible datasets included EPDS scores and major depression classification based on validated diagnostic interviews. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate EPDS sensitivity and specificity compared with semi-structured, fully structured (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) excluded), and MINI diagnostic interviews separately using individual participant data. One stage meta-regression was used to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics.ResultsIndividual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher, respectively. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women.ConclusionsAn EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity; a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific. To identify pregnant and postpartum women with higher symptom levels, a cut-off of 13 or higher could be used. Lower cut-off values could be used if the intention is to avoid false negatives and identify most patients who meet diagnostic criteria.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42015024785).

Project description:BackgroundSelective reporting of results from only well-performing cut-offs leads to biased estimates of accuracy in primary studies of questionnaire-based screening tools and in meta-analyses that synthesize results. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of sensitivity and specificity at each cut-off via bivariate random-effects models (BREMs) can overcome this problem. However, IPDMA is laborious and depends on the ability to successfully obtain primary datasets, and BREMs ignore the correlation between cut-offs within primary studies.MethodsWe compared the performance of three recent multiple cut-off models developed by Steinhauser et al., Jones et al., and Hoyer and Kuss, that account for missing cut-offs when meta-analyzing diagnostic accuracy studies with multiple cut-offs, to BREMs fitted at each cut-off. We used data from 22 studies of the accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; 4475 participants, 758 major depression cases). We fitted each of the three multiple cut-off models and BREMs to a dataset with results from only published cut-offs from each study (published data) and an IPD dataset with results for all cut-offs (full IPD data). We estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each cut-off and the area under the curve.ResultsCompared to the BREMs fitted to the full IPD data, the Steinhauser et al., Jones et al., and Hoyer and Kuss models fitted to the published data produced similar receiver operating characteristic curves; though, the Hoyer and Kuss model had lower area under the curve, mainly due to estimating slightly lower sensitivity at lower cut-offs. When fitting the three multiple cut-off models to the full IPD data, a similar pattern of results was observed. Importantly, all models had similar 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity, and the CI width increased with cut-off levels for sensitivity and decreased with an increasing cut-off for specificity, even the BREMs which treat each cut-off separately.ConclusionsMultiple cut-off models appear to be the favorable methods when only published data are available. While collecting IPD is expensive and time consuming, IPD can facilitate subgroup analyses that cannot be conducted with published data only.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety in the ante- and postnatal period is prevalent, often co-occurs with depression, and can have adverse consequences for the infant. Therefore, perinatal mental health screening programs should not only focus on depression but also on detecting anxiety. However, in many already implemented perinatal screening programs, adding extra screening instruments is not feasible. We examine the utility of a subscale of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) consisting of items 3, 4, and 5 (EPDS-3A) for detecting anxiety in new mothers.MethodsWe used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the presence of the EPDS-3A found in a previous study (n = 320) where exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used. For the CFA we used a sample of new mothers (n = 442) with children aged 2-11 months recruited from the same population from which mothers for the previous study was recruited. Three models were tested and compared. Receiver operating characteristics of the EPDS-3A were investigated in relation to anxiety caseness status on the combined sample (N = 762). Sample weighing was used to match the dataset to the target population. Cross tabulation was used to investigate the proportion of anxiety cases identified by the EPDS-3A above those identified with the total EPDS.ResultsThe presence of the EPDS-3A was confirmed. An EFA-driven, two-dimensional 7-item model showed the best data fit with one factor representing the anxiety subscale consisting of items 3, 4, and 5. An EPDS-3A score of ≥ 5 was the most optimal for identifying cases of anxiety (sensitivity: 70.9; specificity: 92.2; AUC: 0.926). Further, we found that the EPDS-3A identifies an additional 2.5% of anxiety cases that would not have been identified with the total EPDS.ConclusionsThe EPDS-3A can be used as a time-efficient screening for possible anxiety in ante- and postnatal mothers. However, adding the EPDS-3A to routine screening with the total EPDS does not lead to a substantial increase in the number of women identified. In line with previous studies, this study confirms that the EPDS identifies anxiety in addition to depression. Therefore, assessment and treatment adjusted to the specific emotional difficulties is imperative.

Dataset Information

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.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets