Do new corn hybrids and yield levels influence potassium fertilizer management?

The frequency of potassium (K) deficiency symptoms in corn has increased in recent years. Observations in Iowa and neighboring states have shown that the reason for these symptoms was a low soil K level in about two-thirds of the instances reported. In the rest of the instances, however, the K deficiency symptoms resulted from a variety of reasons related to limitations in root growth or water uptake and/or K uptake by plants. It is known that factors that limit root activity and growth greatly inhibit K uptake and yield because K is a relatively immobile nutrient in soils. A strong root system and continuous growth of fine roots are required to supply sufficient K to high yielding crops. However, there has not been research on K use efficiency or K fertilizer need of genetically modified modern hybrids with traits that may directly or indirectly affect the physiological needs for K or the plant capacity for K uptake. Of particular interest is the rootworm resistance trait, because a healthier root system without a need for root insecticides and higher yield could result on different root size or surface area that, in turn, can affect K uptake and the yield response to K fertilization. Therefore, a research project has been investigating since 2006 the K nutrition of corn hybrids with or without the rootworm resistance trait

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

Objectives: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis

Objective: To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. Design: Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. Results: Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. Conclusions: PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014010673

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured vs. fully structured diagnostic interviews

Background: Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification. Aims: To evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics. Method: Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analyzed. Binomial Generalized Linear Mixed Models were fit. Results: 17,158 participants (2,287 major depression cases) from 57 primary studies were analyzed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared to the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) [OR (95% CI) = 2.10 (1.15-3.87)]. Compared to semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 6) as having major depression [OR (95% CI) = 3.13 (0.98-10.00)], similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) [OR (95% CI) = 0.96 (0.56-1.66)], and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 16) [OR (95% CI) = 0.50 (0.26-0.97)]. Conclusions: The MINI may identify more depressed cases than the CIDI, and semi- and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated

Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews

BACKGROUND: Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics. METHOD: Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit. RESULTS: A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses

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.</p