CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses
Authors
Y. Wu Levis, B. Ioannidis, J.P.A. Benedetti, A. Thombs, B.D. Sun, Y. He, C. Krishnan, A. Bhandari, P.M. Neupane, D. Negeri, Z. Imran, M. Rice, D.B. Riehm, K.E. Saadat, N. Azar, M. Levis, A.W. Sanchez, T.A. Chiovitti, M.J. Yan, X.W. Boruff, J. Kloda, L.A. Cuijpers, P. Gilbody, S. McMillan, D. Patten, S.B. Shrier, I. Ziegelstein, R.C. Comeau, L. Mitchell, N.D. Tonelli, M. Vigod, S.N. Henry, M. Ismail, Z. Loiselle, C.G. Akena, D.H. Al-Adawi, S. Alamri, S.H. Alvarado, R. Alvarado-Esquivel, C. Amtmann, D. Arroll, B. Ayalon, L. Bakare, M.O. Baradaran, H.R. Barnes, J. Bavle, A.D. Beck, C.T. Beraldi, A. Bernstein, C.N. Bhana, A. Bindt, C. Bombardier, C.H. Boyce, P.M. Büel-Drabe, N. Buji, R.I. Bunevicius, A. Butnoriene, J. Bunevicius, R. Butterworth, P. Carter, G. Chagas, M.H. Chan, J.C.N. Chan, L.F. Chaudron, L.H. Chen, C.-K. Cholera, R. Clover, K. Conroy, R.M. Conway, A. Conwell, Y. Correa, H. Castro E Couto, T. Cukor, D. Dabscheck, E. Daray, F.M. De Figueiredo, F.P. De Man-Van Ginkel, J.M. Diez-Quevedo, C. Douven, E. Downing, M.G. Eapen, V. Fann, J.R. Feinstein, A. Ferentinos, P.P. Fernandes, M. Field, S. Figueiredo, B. Fischer, F.H. Fisher, J.R.W. Flint, A.J. Fujimori, M. Fung, D.S.S. Gallagher, P. Gandy, M. Garcia-Esteve, L. Garman, E.C. Gelaye, B. Gholizadeh, L. Giardinelli, L. Gibson, L.J. Goodyear-Smith, F. Grassi, L. Green, E.P. Greeno, C.G. Hall, B.J. Hantsoo, L. Haroz, E.E. Harter, M. Hegerl, U. Helle, N. Hides, L. Hobfoll, S.E. Honikman, S. Howard, L.M. Hudson, M. Hyphantis, T. Inagaki, M. Jenewein, J. Jeon, H.J. Jette, N. Keller, M. Khalifa, D.S. Khamseh, M.E. Kiely, K.M. Kim, S.-W. Kjargaard, M. Kohler, S. Kohlhoff, J. Kohrt, B.A. Kozinszky, Z. Kusminskas, L. Kwan, Y. Lamers, F. Lara, M.A. Lelli, L. Leonardou, A.A. Levin-Aspenson, H.F. Lotrakul, M. Loureiro, S.R. Lowe, B. Luitel, N.P. Lund, C. Maes, M. Marrie, R.A. Marsh, L. Martin-Santos, R. Marx, B.P. Massardo, L. Matsuoka, Y. Mehner, A. Meuti, V. Michopoulos, I. Misery, L. Sidik, S.M. Munhoz, T.N. Muramatsu, K. Radoš, S.N. Nakku, J.E.M. Navarrete, L. Garcia, P.N. Navines, R. Nishi, D. O&apos
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
Abstract
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. © 202
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
Pergamos : Unified Institutional Repository / Digital Library Platform of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:lib.uoa.gr:uoadl:2982741
Last time updated on 10/02/2023