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

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.To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI.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.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).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

Text2PreventCVD: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of text message-based interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Introduction Text message interventions have been shown to be effective in prevention and management of several non-communicable disease risk factors. However, the extent to which their effects might vary in different participants and settings is uncertain. We aim to conduct a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials examining text message interventions aimed to prevent cardiovascular diseases (CVD) through modification of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs). Methods and analysis Systematic review and IPD meta-analysis will be conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and MetaAnalysis of IPD (PRISMA-IPD) guidelines. Electronic database of published studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library) and international trial registries will be searched to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. Authors of studies meeting the inclusion criteria will be invited to join the IPD meta-analysis group and contribute study data to the common database. The primary outcome will be the difference between intervention and control groups in blood pressure at 6-month follow-up. Key secondary outcomes include effects on lipid parameters, body mass index, smoking levels and self-reported quality of life. If sufficient data is available, we will also analyse blood pressure and other secondary outcomes at 12 months. IPD meta-analysis will be performed using a one-step approach and modelling data simultaneously while accounting for the clustering of the participants within studies. This study will use the existing data to assess the effectiveness of text message-based interventions on CVRFs, the consistency of any effects by participant subgroups and across different healthcare settings. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained for the individual studies by the trial investigators from relevant local ethics committees. This study will include anonymised data for secondary analysis and investigators will be asked to check that this is consistent with their existing approvals. Results will be disseminated via scientific forums including peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international conferences.</p

Mobile phone text-messaging interventions aimed to prevent cardiovascular diseases (Text2PreventCVD): systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

Background: A variety of small mobile phone text-messaging interventions have indicated improvement in risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Yet the extent of this improvement and whether it impacts multiple risk factors together is uncertain. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to investigate the effects of text-messaging interventions for CVD prevention. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify trials investigating a text-messaging intervention focusing on CVD prevention with the potential to modify at least two CVD risk factors in adults. The main outcome was blood pressure (BP). We conducted standard and IPD meta-analysis on pooled data. We accounted for clustering of patients within studies and the primary analysis used random-effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Nine trials were included in the systematic review involving 3779 participants and 5 (n=2612) contributed data to the IPD meta-analysis. Standard meta-analysis showed that the weighted mean differences are as follows: systolic blood pressure (SBP), -4.13 mm Hg (95% CI -11.07 to 2.81, p&lt;0.0001); diastolic blood pressure (DBP), -1.11 mm Hg (-1.91 to -0.31, p=0.002); and body mass index (BMI), -0.32 (-0.49 to -0.16, p=0.000). In the IPD meta-analysis, the mean difference are as follows: SBP, -1.3 mm Hg (-5.4 to 2.7, p=0.5236); DBP, -0.8 mm Hg (-2.5 to 1.0, p=0.3912); and BMI, -0.2 (-0.8 to 0.4, p=0.5200) in the random-effects model. The impact on other risk factors is described, but there were insufficient data to conduct meta-analyses. Conclusion: Mobile phone text-messaging interventions have modest impacts on BP and BMI. Simultaneous but small impacts on multiple risk factors are likely to be clinically relevant and improve outcome, but there are currently insufficient data in pooled analyses to examine the extent to which simultaneous reduction in multiple risk factors occurs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016033236