Argyriadou, S.

Chiron, B.

Claveria, A.

Czachowski, S.

Derriennic, J.

Fern\ue1ndez San Mart\uedn, M.I.

Guillou-Landreat, M.

Le Floch, B.

Le Prielec, A.

Le Reste, J.Y.

Lingner, H.

Lygidakis, C.

Montier, T.

Munoz Perez, M.A.

Nabbe, P.

Sowinska, A.

Van Marwijk, H.

Van Royen, Paul

Abstract: Introduction Depression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated tools to minimize bias in studies of everyday practice. Which tools validated against psychiatric examination, according to the major depression criteria of DSM-IV or 5, can be used for research purposes? Method An international FP team conducted a systematic review using the following databases: Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase, from 2000/01/01 to 2015/10/01. Results The three databases search identified 770 abstracts: 546 abstracts were analyzed after duplicates had been removed (224 duplicates); 50 of the validity studies were eligible and 4 studies were included. In 4 studies, the following tools were found: GDS-5, GDS-15, GDS-30, CESD-R, HADS, PSC-51 and HSCL-25. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value were collected. The Youden index was calculated. Discussion Using efficiency data alone to compare these studies could be misleading. Additional reliability, reproducibility and ergonomic data will be essential for making comparisons. Conclusion This study selected seven tools, usable in primary care research, for the diagnosis of depression. In order to define the best tools in terms of efficiency, reproducibility, reliability and ergonomics for research in primary care, and for care itself, further research will be essential

Institutional Repository Universiteit Antwerpen

Which DSM validated tools for diagnosing depression are usable in primary care research? A systematic literature review

Which DSM validated tools for diagnosing depression are usable in primary care research? A systematic literature review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Repository Universiteit Antwerpen