Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Qiu, Xia
Publication Date: 2023
Other Authors: Wu, Yin, Sun, Ying, Levis, Brooke, Tian, Jizhou, Boruff, Jill T., Cuijpers, Pim, Ioannidis, John P. A., Markham, Sarah, Ziegelstein, Roy C., Vigod, Simone N., Benedetti, Andrea, Thombs, Brett D., Figueiredo, Bárbara, DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/91198
Summary: Item 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of δ = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.
id RCAP_fcc6fb11b946c058a3080c090e6ae63f
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/91198
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm itemHumansFemalePregnancyDepressionPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesSuicidal IdeationDepressive Disorder, MajorDepression, PostpartumItem 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of δ = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Dr. Qiu was supported by a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. Drs. Wu and Levis were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé (FRQ-S) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Dr. Benedetti was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) researcher salary award. Dr. Thombs was supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. The primary study by Alvarado et al. was supported by the Ministry of Health of Chile. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. The primary study by Figueira et al. was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) (Grant no.403433/2004-5). The primary study by Couto et al. was supported by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) (Grant no. 444254/2014-5) and the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG) (Grant no. APQ-01954-14). The primary study by Chorwe-Sungani et al. was supported by the University of Malawi through grant QZA-0484 NORHED 2013. The primary study by de Figueiredo et al. was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Fernandes et al. was supported by grants from the Child: Care Health and Development Trust and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and by the Ashok Ranganathan Bursary from Exeter College, University of Oxford. Dr. Fernandes is supported by a University of Southampton National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academic clinical fellowship in Paediatrics. The primary study by van Heyningen et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council of South Africa (fund no. 415865), Cordaid Netherlands (Project 103/10002 G Sub 7) and the Truworths Community Foundation Trust, South Africa. Dr. van Heyningen was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa and the Harry Crossley Foundation. VHYTHE001/1232209. The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Fisher et al. was supported by a grant under the Invest to Grow Scheme from the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The primary study by Green et al. was supported by a grant from the Duke Global Health Institute (453-0751). The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Numbers RP-PG-1210-12002 and RP-DG-1108-10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Kettunen et al. was supported with an Annual EVO Financing (Special government subsidies from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Finland) by North Karelia Central Hospital and Päijät-Häme Central Hospital. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Roomruangwong et al. was supported by the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund 2013 of Chulalongkorn University (CU-56-457-HR). The primary study by Martínez et al. was supported by Iniciativa Científica Milenio, Chile, process # IS130005 and by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile, process # 1130230. The primary study by Nakić Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (134-0000000-2421). The primary study by Usuda et al. was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (primary investigator: Daisuke Nishi, MD, PhD), and by an Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders from the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan. The primary study by Pawlby et al. was supported by a Medical Research Council UK Project Grant (number G89292999N). The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from the University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Rowe et al. was supported by the diamond Consortium, beyondblue Victorian Centre of Excellence in Depression and Related Disorders. The primary study by Comasco et al. was supported by funds from the Swedish Research Council (VR: 521-2013-2339, VR:523-2014-2342), the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS: 2011-0627), the Marta Lundqvist Foundation (2013, 2014), and the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-331991). The primary study by Smith-Nielsen et al. was supported by a grant from the charitable foundation Tryg Foundation (Grant ID no 107616). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by The Wellcome Trust (grant number 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed’s Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Su et al. was supported by grants from the Department of Health (DOH94F044 and DOH95F022) and the China Medical University and Hospital (CMU94-105, DMR-92-92 and DMR94-46). The primary study by Tandon et al. was funded by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc, and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc. The primary study by Yonkers et al. was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant (5 R01HD045735). No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study.Springer NatureUniversidade do MinhoQiu, XiaWu, YinSun, YingLevis, BrookeTian, JizhouBoruff, Jill T.Cuijpers, PimIoannidis, John P. A.Markham, SarahZiegelstein, Roy C.Vigod, Simone N.Benedetti, AndreaThombs, Brett D.Figueiredo, BárbaraDEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group20232023-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/1822/91198engQiu, X., Wu, Y., Sun, Y. et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item. Sci Rep 13, 4026 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w2045-232210.1038/s41598-023-29114-w368990164026https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29114-winfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2024-05-11T04:33:09Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/91198Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T14:51:26.599114Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
title Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
spellingShingle Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
Qiu, Xia
Humans
Female
Pregnancy
Depression
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Suicidal Ideation
Depressive Disorder, Major
Depression, Postpartum
title_short Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
title_full Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
title_fullStr Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
title_full_unstemmed Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
title_sort Individual participant data meta analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
author Qiu, Xia
author_facet Qiu, Xia
Wu, Yin
Sun, Ying
Levis, Brooke
Tian, Jizhou
Boruff, Jill T.
Cuijpers, Pim
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Markham, Sarah
Ziegelstein, Roy C.
Vigod, Simone N.
Benedetti, Andrea
Thombs, Brett D.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
author_role author
author2 Wu, Yin
Sun, Ying
Levis, Brooke
Tian, Jizhou
Boruff, Jill T.
Cuijpers, Pim
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Markham, Sarah
Ziegelstein, Roy C.
Vigod, Simone N.
Benedetti, Andrea
Thombs, Brett D.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Qiu, Xia
Wu, Yin
Sun, Ying
Levis, Brooke
Tian, Jizhou
Boruff, Jill T.
Cuijpers, Pim
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Markham, Sarah
Ziegelstein, Roy C.
Vigod, Simone N.
Benedetti, Andrea
Thombs, Brett D.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Humans
Female
Pregnancy
Depression
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Suicidal Ideation
Depressive Disorder, Major
Depression, Postpartum
topic Humans
Female
Pregnancy
Depression
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Suicidal Ideation
Depressive Disorder, Major
Depression, Postpartum
description Item 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of δ = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/1822/91198
url https://hdl.handle.net/1822/91198
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Qiu, X., Wu, Y., Sun, Y. et al. Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item. Sci Rep 13, 4026 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w
2045-2322
10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w
36899016
4026
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29114-w
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833594936070504448