Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review

Objectives To investigate the proportion of original studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression that appropriately exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression and to determine whether these systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluate possible bias from the inclusion of such patients

External validation of a shortened screening tool using individual participant data meta-analysis: A case study of the Patient Health Questionnaire-Dep-4.

Shortened versions of self-reported questionnaires may be used to reduce respondent burden. When shortened screening tools are used, it is desirable to maintain equivalent diagnostic accuracy to full-length forms. This manuscript presents a case study that illustrates how external data and individual participant data meta-analysis can be used to assess the equivalence in diagnostic accuracy between a shortened and full-length form. This case study compares the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and a 4-item shortened version (PHQ-Dep-4) that was previously developed using optimal test assembly methods. Using a large database of 75 primary studies (34,698 participants, 3,392 major depression cases), we evaluated whether the PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maintained equivalent diagnostic accuracy to a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10. Using this external validation dataset, a PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81, 0.93), 0.68 (95% CI 0.56, 0.78), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.73, 0.85) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively, and a specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74, 0.83), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.80, 0.86) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively. While equivalence with a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10 was not established, we found the sensitivity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be non-inferior to that of the PHQ-9, and the specificity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be marginally smaller than the PHQ-9

Depression Screening and Patient Outcomes in Cancer: A Systematic Review

Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes.Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT.There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37).The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care

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

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.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