Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) in spondyloarthritis: Prevalence and associated phenotype.

J. Maillet,S. Ottaviani,F. Tubach,C. Roy,Pascale Nicaise-Rolland,E. Palazzo,P. Dieudé

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2015.10.011

2016-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Brooke Levis,Zelalem Negeri,Ying Sun,Andrea Benedetti,Brett D Thombs,,Chen He,Ankur Krishnan,Yin Wu,Parash Mani Bhandari,Dipika Neupane,Mahrukh Imran,Danielle B Rice,Marleine Azar,Tatiana A Sanchez,Matthew J Chiovitti,Nazanin Saadat,Kira E Riehm,Jill T Boruff,Lorie A Kloda,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,John P A Ioannidis,Dean McMillan,Scott B Patten,Ian Shrier,Roy C Ziegelstein,Liane Comeau,Nicholas D Mitchell,Marcello Tonelli,Simone N Vigod,Franca Aceti,Rubén Alvarado,Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel,Muideen O Bakare,Jacqueline Barnes,Amar D Bavle,Cheryl Tatano Beck,Carola Bindt,Philip M Boyce,Adomas Bunevicius,Humberto Correa,Tiago Castro e Couto,Linda H Chaudron,Genesis Chorwe-Sungani,Felipe Pinheiro de Figueiredo,Valsamma Eapen,Nicolas Favez,Ethel Felice,Gracia Fellmeth,Michelle Fernandes,Sally Field,Barbara Figueiredo,Jane R W Fisher,Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve,Lisa Giardinelli,Eric P Green,Nadine Helle,Simone Honikman,Louise M Howard,Pirjo A Kettunen,Dina Sami Khalifa,Jane Kohlhoff,Laima Kusminskas,Zoltán Kozinszky,Lorenzo Lelli,Angeliki A Leonardou,Michael Maes,Carina Y Marsay,Pablo Martínez,Valentina Meuti,Sandra Nakić Radoš,Purificación Navarro García,Daisuke Nishi,Daniel Okitundu Luwa E-Andjafono,Susan J Pawlby,Emma Robertson-Blackmore,Tamsen J Rochat,Heather J Rowe,Deborah J Sharp,Bonnie W M Siu,Alkistis Skalkidou,Johanne Smith-Nielsen,Alan Stein,Robert C Stewart,Kuan-Pin Su,Inger Sundström-Poromaa,Meri Tadinac,S Darius Tandon,Iva Tendais,Pavaani Thiagayson,Annamária Töreki,Anna Torres-Giménez,Thach D Tran,Kylee Trevillion,Friday P Tungchama,Katherine Turner,Mette S Væver,Thandi van Heyningen,Johann M Vega-Dienstmaier,Karen Wynter,Kimberly A Yonkers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4022

2020-11-11

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression in pregnant and postpartum women. Design Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from inception to 3 October 2018). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible datasets included EPDS scores and major depression classification based on validated diagnostic interviews. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate EPDS sensitivity and specificity compared with semi-structured, fully structured (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) excluded), and MINI diagnostic interviews separately using individual participant data. One stage meta-regression was used to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics. Results Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher, respectively. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women. Conclusions An EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity; a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific. To identify pregnant and postpartum women with higher symptom levels, a cut-off of 13 or higher could be used. Lower cut-off values could be used if the intention is to avoid false negatives and identify most patients who meet diagnostic criteria. Registration PROSPERO (CRD42015024785).

English Else
The screening accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to detect perinatal depression with and without the self-harm item in pregnant and postpartum women

Alberto Stefana,Fiorino Mirabella,Antonella Gigantesco,Laura Camoni,Perinatal Mental Health Nework,Perinatal Mental Health Nework also includes:,Franca Aceti,Ilaria Adulti,Lucia Aite,Piero Bagolan,Gina Barbano,Antonello Bellomo,Silvia Bucci,Simona Cappelletti,Marina Cattaneo,Elda Cengia,Rodica Cojoca,Giuseppe Cuccì,Loredana Desimone,Monica Del Sole,Angela Fabiano,Chiara Falamesca,Laura Favretti,Alice Fent,Laura Ferraro,Nicoletta Giacchetti,Antonella Grillo,Teresa Grimaldi Capitello,Daniele La Barbera,Marianna Mazza,Loredana Messina,Cinzia Niolu,Giovanna Picciano,Maria Pistillo,Laura Raho,Miryam Regonesi,Rossana Riolo,Angela Rossi,Gabriele Sani,Martina Smorti,Damiana Tomasello,Antonella Triggiani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2024.2404967

Abstract:Background: This study aims to examine whether the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), excluding the self-harm item (EPDS-9), performs as effectively as the full EPDS in identifying depression among perinatal women. Methods: A total of 3571 pregnant women and 3850 postpartum women participated in this observational study. Participants who scored ≥ 9 on the EPDS underwent further diagnostic evaluations by a clinical psychologist and/or psychiatrist. Results: The EPDS-9 and full EPDS demonstrated a near-perfect correlation in both the antepartum (r = 0.996) and postpartum (r = 0.998) cohorts. EPDS-9 showed exceptional precision in identifying depression as screened by the full EPDS at cutoff points ranging 9-14, with areas under the curve ≥0.998. The sensitivity of EPDS-9 and full EPDS to detect depression that requires psychotropic medications was poor. The highest accuracy for both versions was at a cutoff score of 9: sensitivity of 0.579 for the full EPDS and 0.526 for the EPDS-9. At the cutoff point of 9, EPDS-9 performed adequately in predicting the response of the participants to the self-harm item. Conclusion: The EPDS-9 represents a solid and effective replacement for the full EPDS in clinical settings. If the presence of suicidal thoughts needs to be assessed, specialized scales should be used.
An empirical comparison of statistical methods for multiple cut-off diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) depression screening tool using published results vs individual participant data

Zelalem F. Negeri,Brooke Levis,John P. A. Ioannidis,Brett D. Thombs,Andrea Benedetti,Ying Sun,Chen He,Ankur Krishnan,Yin Wu,Parash Mani Bhandari,Dipika Neupane,Mahrukh Imran,Danielle B. Rice,Marleine Azar,Matthew J. Chiovitti,Kira E. Riehm,Jill T. Boruff,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,Lorie A. Kloda,Scott B. Patten,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Sarah Markham,Liane Comeau,Nicholas D. Mitchell,Simone N. Vigod,Muideen O. Bakare,Cheryl Tatano Beck,Adomas Bunevicius,Tiago Castro e Couto,Genesis Chorwe-Sungani,Nicolas Favez,Sally Field,Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve,Simone Honikman,Dina Sami Khalifa,Jane Kohlhoff,Laima Kusminskas,Zoltán Kozinszky,Sandra Nakić Radoš,Susan J. Pawlby,Tamsen J. Rochat,Deborah J. Sharp,Johanne Smith-Nielsen,Kuan-Pin Su,Meri Tadinac,S. Darius Tandon,Pavaani Thiagayson,Annamária Töreki,Anna Torres-Giménez,Thandi van Heyningen,Johann M. Vega-Dienstmaier,the DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02134-w

2024-02-02

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Selective reporting of results from only well-performing cut-offs leads to biased estimates of accuracy in primary studies of questionnaire-based screening tools and in meta-analyses that synthesize results. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of sensitivity and specificity at each cut-off via bivariate random-effects models (BREMs) can overcome this problem. However, IPDMA is laborious and depends on the ability to successfully obtain primary datasets, and BREMs ignore the correlation between cut-offs within primary studies.

health care sciences & services
[Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy of esophageal varices].

Y. Idezuki

1990-04-01

Abstract:
Data-driven methods distort optimal cutoffs and accuracy estimates of depression screening tools: a simulation study using individual participant data

Parash Mani Bhandari,Brooke Levis,Dipika Neupane,Scott B. Patten,Ian Shrier,Brett D. Thombs,Andrea Benedetti,the Depression Screening Data EPDS Group,Ying Sun,Chen He,Danielle B. Rice,Ankur Krishnan,Yin Wu,Marleine Azar,Tatiana A. Sanchez,Matthew J. Chiovitti,Nazanin Saadat,Kira E. Riehm,Mahrukh Imran,Zelalem Negeri,Jill T. Boruff,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,John P.A. Ioannidis,Lorie A. Kloda,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Liane Comeau,Nicholas D. Mitchell,Marcello Tonelli,Simone N. Vigod,Franca Aceti,Rubén Alvarado,Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel,Muideen O. Bakare,Jacqueline Barnes,Amar D. Bavle,Cheryl Tatano Beck,Carola Bindt,Philip M. Boyce,Adomas Bunevicius,Tiago Castro e Couto,Linda H. Chaudron,Humberto Correa,Felipe Pinheiro de Figueiredo,Valsamma Eapen,Nicolas Favez,Ethel Felice,Michelle Fernandes,Barbara Figueiredo,Jane R.W. Fisher,Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve,Lisa Giardinelli,Nadine Helle,Louise M. Howard,Dina Sami Khalifa,Jane Kohlhoff,Zoltán Kozinszky,Laima Kusminskas,Lorenzo Lelli,Angeliki A. Leonardou,Michael Maes,Valentina Meuti,Sandra Nakić Radoš,Purificación Navarro García,Daisuke Nishi,Daniel Okitundu Luwa E-Andjafono,Susan J. Pawlby,Chantal Quispel,Emma Robertson-Blackmore,Tamsen J. Rochat,Heather J. Rowe,Deborah J. Sharp,Bonnie W.M. Siu,Alkistis Skalkidou,Alan Stein,Robert C. Stewart,Kuan-Pin Su,Inger Sundström-Poromaa,Meri Tadinac,S. Darius Tandon,Iva Tendais,Pavaani Thiagayson,Annamária Töreki,Anna Torres-Giménez,Thach D. Tran,Kylee Trevillion,Katherine Turner,Johann M. Vega-Dienstmaier,Karen Wynter,Kimberly A. Yonkers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.031

IF: 7.407

2021-09-01

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>To evaluate, across multiple sample sizes, the degree that data-driven methods result in (1) optimal cutoffs different from population optimal cutoff and (2) bias in accuracy estimates.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Study design and setting</h3><p>1,000 samples of sample size 100, 200, 500 and 1,000 each were randomly drawn to simulate studies of different sample sizes from a database (N=13,255) synthesized to assess Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) screening accuracy. Optimal cutoffs were selected by maximizing Youden's J (sensitivity+specificity–1). Optimal cutoffs and accuracy estimates in simulated samples were compared to population values.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Optimal cutoffs in simulated samples ranged from ≥5 to ≥17 for N=100, ≥6 to ≥16 for N=200, ≥6 to ≥14 for N=500, and ≥8 to ≥13 for N=1,000. Percentage of simulated samples identifying the population optimal cutoff (≥11) was 30% for N=100, 35% for N=200, 53% for N=500, and 71% for N=1,000. Mean overestimation of sensitivity and underestimation of specificity were 6.5 percentage point (pp) and -1.3 pp for N=100, 4.2 pp and -1.1 pp for N=200, 1.8 pp and -1.0 pp for N=500, and 1.4 pp and -1.0 pp for N=1,000.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Small accuracy studies may identify inaccurate optimal cutoff and overstate accuracy estimates with data-driven methods.</p>

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Chen He,Brooke Levis,Kira E. Riehm,Nazanin Saadat,Alexander W. Levis,Marleine Azar,Danielle B. Rice,Ankur Krishnan,Yin Wu,Ying Sun,Mahrukh Imran,Jill Boruff,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,John P.A. Ioannidis,Lorie A. Kloda,Dean McMillan,Scott B. Patten,Ian Shrier,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Dickens H. Akena,Bruce Arroll,Liat Ayalon,Hamid R. Baradaran,Murray Baron,Anna Beraldi,Charles H. Bombardier,Peter Butterworth,Gregory Carter,Marcos Hortes Nisihara Chagas,Juliana C.N. Chan,Rushina Cholera,Kerrie Clover,Yeates Conwell,Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel,Jesse R. Fann,Felix H. Fischer,Daniel Fung,Bizu Gelaye,Felicity Goodyear-Smith,Catherine G. Greeno,Brian J. Hall,Patricia A. Harrison,Martin Härter,Ulrich Hegerl,Leanne Hides,Stevan E. Hobfoll,Marie Hudson,Thomas N. Hyphantis,Masatoshi Inagaki,Khalida Ismail,Nathalie Jetté,Mohammad E. Khamseh,Kim M. Kiely,Yunxin Kwan,Femke Lamers,Shen-Ing Liu,Manote Lotrakul,Sonia R. Loureiro,Bernd Löwe,Laura Marsh,Anthony McGuire,Sherina Mohd-Sidik,Tiago N. Munhoz,Kumiko Muramatsu,Flávia L. Osório,Vikram Patel,Brian W. Pence,Philippe Persoons,Angelo Picardi,Katrin Reuter,Alasdair G. Rooney,Iná S. da Silva dos Santos,Juwita Shaaban,Abbey Sidebottom,Adam Simning,Lesley Stafford,Sharon Sung,Pei Lin Lynnette Tan,Alyna Turner,Henk C.P.M. van Weert,Jennifer White,Mary A. Whooley,Kirsty Winkley,Mitsuhiko Yamada,Brett D. Thombs,Andrea Benedetti,Kira E. Riehm,Alexander W. Levis,Danielle B. Rice,John P.A. Ioannidis,Lorie A. Kloda,Scott B. Patten,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Dickens H. Akena,Hamid R. Baradaran,Charles H. Bombardier,Marcos Hortes Nisihara Chagas,Juliana C.N. Chan,Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel,Jesse R. Fann,Felix H. Fischer,Bizu Gelaye,Catherine G. Greeno,Brian J. Hall,Patricia A. Harrison,Stevan E. Hobfoll,Thomas N. Hyphantis,Mohammad E. Khamseh,Kim M. Kiely,Sonia R. Loureiro,Tiago N. Munhoz,Flávia L. Osório,Brian W. Pence,Alasdair G. Rooney,Iná S. da Silva dos Santos,Pei Lin Lynnette Tan,Henk C.P.M. van Weert,Mary A. Whooley,Brett D. Thombs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000502294

2019-10-08

Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract:Background: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. Objective: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. Methods: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. Results: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22–0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06–0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82–0.92) and 0.86 (0.82–0.88). Conclusions: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.Psychother Psychosom

psychiatry,psychology
Exploration of the psychometric properties of the EPDS-US, a validation study

Sara Wagner Moyer,Suzanne Ameringer,R.K. Elswick,Jaclyn D. Nunziato,Patricia Anne Kinser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.02.025

IF: 6.533

2024-05-01

Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to explore the reliability and construct validity of the EPDS-US.METHODS: To enhance the perinatal mental health screen, we adapted the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen (EPDS) for application in the United States, and evaluated reliability and construct validity of the EPDS-US in a sample of 100 postpartum individuals. We explored reliability by estimating internal consistency of the scale and evaluating concurrent validity with correlations to the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7); and construct validity using factor analysis and discriminant validity with correlations to the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS).RESULTS: We present both a one-factor (Cronbach's alpha of 0.83) and two-factor model consisting of depressive (Cronbach's alpha 0.76) and anxiety symptoms (Cronbach's alpha 0.78) of the EPDS-US. Related to discriminant validity, the EPDS-US and PSS exhibited a moderate correlation of 0.71. For measures of concurrent validity, correlations with the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were moderate; 0.63 and 0.68, respectively.CONCLUSION: The EPDS-US was adapted to enhance the perinatal mental health screening experience for populations in the US while maintaining the reliability and validity of the original Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. These findings contribute to the evidence of reliability and validity of the EPDS-US in perinatal populations in the United States; presenting initial evidence supporting construct validity and concurrent validity of this newly adapted 10-item scale.

psychiatry,clinical neurology
Comparison of Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression - Depression subscale scores by administration mode: An individual participant data differential item functioning meta-analysis

Daphna Harel,Yin Wu,Brooke Levis,Suiqiong Fan,Ying Sun,Mingyao Xu,Danielle B Rice,Jill Boruff,Sarah Markham,John P A Ioannidis,Yemisi Takwoingi,Scott B Patten,Roy C Ziegelstein,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,Simone Vigod,Dickens Akena,Andrea Benedetti,Brett D Thombs,DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration,Marleine Azar,Parash Mani Bhandari,Matthew J Chiovitti,Chen He,Mahrukh Imran,Ankur Krishnan,Zelalem Negeri,Dipika Neupane,Kira E Riehm,Xin Wei Yan,Lorie A Kloda,Melissa Henry,Zahinoor Ismail,Carmen G Loiselle,Nicholas D Mitchell,Samir Al-Adawi,Rubén Alvarado,Dagmar Amtmann,Bruce Arroll,Liat Ayalon,Hamid R Baradaran,Jacqueline Barnes,Kevin R Beck,Cheryl Tatano Beck,Charles N Bernstein,Carola Bindt,Charles H Bombardier,Birgitte Boye,Natalie Büel-Drabe,Ryna Imma Buji,Adomas Bunevicius,Peter Butterworth,Ceyhun Can,Gregory Carter,Marcos H Chagas,Juliana C N Chan,Lai Fong Chan,Chih-Ken Chen,Dixon Chibanda,Genesis Chorwe-Sungani,Kerrie Clover,Ronán M Conroy,Aaron Conway,Yeates Conwell,Humberto Correa,Thiago Castro E Couto,Daniel Cukor,Federico M Daray,Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel,Jennifer De Souza,Marina G Downing,Valsamma Eapen,Jesse R Fann,Nicolas Favez,Ethel Felice,Gracia Fellmeth,Panagiotis P Ferentinos,Michelle Fernandes,Sally Field,Barbara Figueiredo,Felix H Fischer,Jane R W Fisher,Alastair J Flint,Maiko Fujimori,Daniel S S Fung,Pamela Gallagher,Milena Gandy,Bizu Gelaye,Leila Gholizadeh,Lorna J Gibson,Felicity Goodyear-Smith,Luigi Grassi,Eric P Green,Catherine G Greeno,Brian J Hall,Liisa Hantsoo,Emily E Haroz,Martin Härter,Ulrich Hegerl,Nadine Helle,Asuncion Hernando,Leanne Hides,Stevan E Hobfoll,Simone Honikman,Louise M Howard,Thomas Hyphantis,Maria Iglesias-González,Masatoshi Inagaki,Josef Jenewein,Hong Jin Jeon,Nathalie Jetté,Miguel Julião,Pirjo A Kettunen,Mohammad E Khamseh,Kim M Kiely,Sung-Wan Kim,Marie Kjærgaard,Jane Kohlhoff,Brandon A Kohrt,Hans-Helmut König,Zoltán Kozinszky,Yunxin Kwan,Femke Lamers,María Asunción Lara,Angeliki A Leonardou,Holly F Levin-Aspenson,Shen-Ing Liu,Margrit Löbner,Wim L Loosman,Manote Lotrakul,Sonia R Loureiro,Anthony W Love,Bernd Löwe,Nagendra P Luitel,Crick Lund,Michael Maes,Ulrik F Malt,Ruth Ann Marrie,Laura Marsh,Pablo Martínez,Brian P Marx,Yutaka Matsuoka,Anthony McGuire,Anja Mehnert,Ioannis Michopoulos,Sherina Mohd Sidik,Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn,Kumiko Muramatsu,Sandra Nakić Radoš,Laura Navarrete,Christian J Nelson,Chong Guan Ng,Daisuke Nishi,Meaghan L O'Donnell,Suzanne J O'Rourke,Flávia L Osório,Alexander Pabst,Julie A Pasco,Susan J Pawlby,Jurate Peceliuniene,Brian W Pence,Philippe Persoons,Inge Petersen,Angelo Picardi,Jennie L Ponsford,Stephanie L Pugh,Federico Pulido,Terence J Quinn,Chantal Quispel,Sujit D Rathod,Silje E Reme,Katrin Reuter,Steffi G Riedel-Heller,Alasdair G Rooney,Iná S Santos,Rebecca M Saracino,Melanie P J Schellekens,Marcelo L Schwarzbold,Vesile Senturk Cankorur,Juwita Shaaban,Deborah J Sharp,Louise Sharpe,Eileen H Shinn,Abbey Sidebottom,Sébastien Simard,Susanne Singer,Alkistis Skalkidou,Johanne Smith-Nielsen,Lena Spangenberg,Lesley Stafford,Alan Stein,Robert C Stewart,Natalie A Strobel,Kuan-Pin Su,Serge Sultan,Inger Sundström-Poromaa,Sharon C Sung,Keiko Suzuki,Meri Tadinac,Pei Lin Lynnette Tan,S Darius Tandon,Martin Taylor-Rowan,Antonio L Teixeira,Iva Tendais,Istvan Tiringer,Annamária Töreki,Thach D Tran,Kylee Trevillion,Mira Tschorn,Alyna Turner,Mette S Væver,Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis,Thandi van Heyningen,Johann M Vega-Dienstmaier,Michael Wagner,Lynne I Wagner,Liang-Jen Wang,Jian Li Wang,David Watson,Siegfried B Weyerer,Jennifer White,Mary A Whooley,Birgitt Wiese,Lana J Williams,Kirsty Winkley,Karen Wynter,Mitsuhiko Yamada,Kimberly A Yonkers,Qing Zhi Zeng,Yuying Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.06.033

2024-09-15

Abstract:Administration mode of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may influence responses. We assessed if Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale (HADS-D) item responses and scores were associated with administration mode. We compared (1) self-administration versus interview-administration; within self-administration (2) research or medical setting versus private; and (3) pen-and-paper versus electronic; and within interview-administration (4) in-person versus phone. We analysed individual participant data meta-analysis datasets with item-level data for the PHQ-9 (N = 34,529), EPDS (N = 16,813), and HADS-D (N = 16,768). We used multiple indicator multiple cause models to assess differential item functioning (DIF) by administration mode. We found statistically significant DIF for most items on all measures due to large samples, but influence on total scores was negligible. In 10 comparisons conducted across the PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D, Pearson's correlations and intraclass correlation coefficients between latent depression symptom scores from models that did or did not account for DIF were between 0.995 and 1.000. Total PHQ-9, EPDS, and HADS-D scores did not differ materially across administration modes. Researcher and clinicians who evaluate depression symptoms with these questionnaires can select administration methods based on patient preferences, feasibility, or cost.
Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Eliana Brehaut,Dipika Neupane,Brooke Levis,Yin Wu,Ying Sun,Ankur Krishnan,Chen He,Parash Mani Bhandari,Zelalem Negeri,Marleine Azar,Xin Wei Yan,Mahrukh Imran,Nazanin Saadat,Pim Cuijpers,Sarah Markham,Melissa Henry,Zahinoor Ismail,Marcello Tonelli,Anna Beraldi,Gregory Carter,Kerrie Clover,Daniel Cukor,Jennifer De Souza,Anthony Feinstein,Maiko Fujimori,Pamela Gallagher,Simone Goebel,Nathalie Jetté,Miguel Julião,Monika Keller,Marie Kjærgaard,Bernd Löwe,Rocio Martin-Santos,Ioannis Michopoulos,Ricard Navines,Ahmet Öztürk,Luis Pintor,Roberto Sánchez-González,Michael Sharpe,Sébastien Simard,Susanne Singer,Jon Stone,Ka-Yee Tung,Alyna Turner,Jane Walker,Mark Walterfang,Jennifer White,Andrea Benedetti,Kira E. Riehm,Danielle B. Rice,Matthew J. Chiovitti,John P.A. Ioannidis,Scott B. Patten,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Carmen G. Loiselle,Nicholas D. Mitchell,Jill T. Boruff,Lorie A. Kloda,Anna P.B.M. Braeken,Ronán M. Conroy,Carlos E. da Rocha e Silva,Marina G. Downing,Panagiotis P. Ferentinos,Felix H. Fischer,Alastair J. Flint,Anthony W. Love,Suzanne J. O’Rourke,Jennie L. Ponsford,Alasdair G. Rooney,Marcelo L. Schwarzbold,Brett D. Thombs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110256

IF: 4.62

2020-12-01

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract: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.

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

Brooke Levis,Andrea Benedetti,Brett D Thombs,Kira E Riehm,Nazanin Saadat,Alexander W Levis,Marleine Azar,Danielle B Rice,Matthew J Chiovitti,Tatiana A Sanchez,Jill Boruff,Pim Cuijpers,Simon Gilbody,John P A Ioannidis,Lorie A Kloda,Dean McMillan,Scott B Patten,Ian Shrier,Roy C Ziegelstein,Dickens H Akena,Bruce Arroll,Liat Ayalon,Hamid R Baradaran,Murray Baron,Charles H Bombardier,Peter Butterworth,Gregory Carter,Marcos H Chagas,Juliana C N Chan,Kerrie Clover,Yeates Conwell,Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel,Jaime Delgadillo,Jesse R Fann,Felix H Fischer,Daniel Fung,Bizu Gelaye,Felicity Goodyear-Smith,Catherine G Greeno,Brian J Hall,John Hambridge,Patricia A Harrison,Martin Härter,Ulrich Hegerl,Leanne Hides,Stevan E Hobfoll,Marie Hudson,Masatoshi Inagaki,Khalida Ismail,Nathalie Jetté,Mohammad E Khamseh,Kim M Kiely,Yunxin Kwan,Shen-Ing Liu,Manote Lotrakul,Sonia R Loureiro,Bernd Löwe,Laura Marsh,Anthony McGuire,Sherina Mohd Sidik,Tiago N Munhoz,Kumiko Muramatsu,Flávia L Osório,Vikram Patel,Brian W Pence,Philippe Persoons,Angelo Picardi,Katrin Reuter,Alasdair G. Rooney,Iná S Santos,Juwita Shaaban,Abbey Sidebottom,Adam Simning,Lesley Stafford,Sharon C Sung,Pei Lin Lynnette Tan,Alyna Turner,Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis,Henk C van Weert,Paul A Vöhringer,Jennifer White,Mary A Whooley,Kirsty Winkley,Mitsuhiko Yamada,Yuying Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1476

2019-04-09

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract 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.
Salmonellae and salmonellosis in captive reptiles.

D. Onderka,M. Finlayson

1985-07-01

Abstract:In a survey of 150 pet reptiles submitted for necropsy, 51% of snakes, 48% of lizards and 7% of turtles were infected with Salmonella. About one third of the positive animals had died due to various manifestations of salmonellosis. Thirty-one Salmonella serotypes were identified including three isolates new to Canada. The public health implications are discussed in view of the restricted popularity of reptiles and their possible infection from domestic agricultural products.
Detection of Postnatal Depression

J. L. Cox,J. M. Holden,R. Sagovsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.150.6.782

1987-06-01

Abstract:The development of a 10-item self-report scale (EPDS) to screen for Postnatal Depression in the community is described. After extensive pilot interviews a validation study was carried out on 84 mothers using the Research Diagnostic Criteria for depressive illness obtained from Goldberg's Standardised Psychiatric Interview. The EPDS was found to have satisfactory sensitivity and specficity, and was also sensitive to change in the severity of depression over time. The scale can be completed in about 5 minutes and has a simple method of scoring. The use of the EPDS in the secondary prevention of Postnatal Depression is discussed.

psychiatry
Depression Screening Tool Accuracy Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses: Data Contribution was Associated with Multiple Factors

Yin Wu,Ying Sun,Yi Liu,Brooke Levis,Ankur Krishnan,Chen He,Dipika Neupane,Scott B Patten,Pim Cuijpers,Roy C Ziegelstein,Andrea Benedetti,Brett D Thombs,Scott B. Patten,Roy C. Ziegelstein,Brett D. Thombs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.006

IF: 7.407

2023-08-24

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Objective To examine the proportion of eligible primary studies that contributed data, study characteristics associated with data contribution, and reasons for non-contribution using diagnostic test accuracy individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) datasets from the DEPRESsion Screening Data project. Study Design and Setting We reviewed dataset contributions from four IPDMAs. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate study factors associated with data contribution. Results Of 456 eligible studies from four included IPDMAs, 295 (65%) contributed data. More recent year of publication and higher journal impact factor were associated with greater odds of data contribution. Studies conducted in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom), Oceania, Canada, the Middle East, Africa, Central or South America (reference=the United States), recruited in inpatient care or non-medical settings (reference=outpatient), reported screening accuracy results, or drew negative conclusions (reference=positive conclusions) were more likely to contribute data. Studies of the Geriatric Depression Scale (reference=the Patient Health Questionnaire) or lacking funding information were negatively associated with data contribution. Over 80% of non-contributions were due to authors being unreachable or data being unavailable. Conclusion The study identified factors associated with data contribution that may support future research to promote data contribution to IPDMAs.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
640 Gb/s transmission of sixty-four 10 Gb/s WDM channels over 7200 km with 0.33 (bits/s)/Hz spectral efficiency

N. Bergano,C. Davidson,C.J. Chen,B. Pedersen,M. A. Mills,N. Ramanujam,H. Kidorf,A. Puc,M. D. Levonas,H. Abdelkader

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/OFC.1999.766035

1999-02-21

Abstract:Sixty-four 10 gb/s WDM channels were transmitted over 7200 km is a spectral bandwidth of 15.1 nm for a spectral efficiency of 0.33 (bits/s)Hz. Error free operation was achieved for all channels.
Relationship between Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) Scores in the Early Postpartum Period and Related Stress Coping Characteristics

Shoichi Magawa,Sachiko Yanase,Tsutako Miyazaki,Kazumasa Igura,Shintaro Maki,Shota Nii,Masafumi Nii,Hiroaki Tanaka,Eiji Kondo,Tomoaki Ikeda,Takayuki Kageyama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071350

2022-07-21

Abstract:Despite postpartum depression being a common mental health problem, there is no screening method for it. The only risk assessment used is the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). We investigated the relationship between Brief Scale for Coping Profile (BSCP) subscales performed during pregnancy and EPDS scores. We recruited 353 women with normal pregnancies (160 primiparas, and 193 multiparas) and performed BSCP at 26 weeks of gestation. The EPDS was first performed within one week after delivery (T1), and then after one month (T2). Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated for the BSCP and EPDS for the whole and primi/multipara groups. Multiple regression analysis was performed with the EPDS T2 scores as the dependent variable. The EPDS scores were higher in the primipara group compared to the multipara (p < 0.001), and the EPDS T1 scores were higher than the overall T2 score (p < 0.001). In the multiple regression analysis, EPDS T1 and the “seeking help for solution” subscale were selected as significant explanatory variables when analyzed in the whole group; EPDS T1 and “active solution” for the primiparas; and EPDS T1, “changing mood”, and “seeking help for solution” for the multiparas. The BSCP can be used as a screening tool for postpartum depression during pregnancy.
Symptomatology in 1,112 women screened positive and negative using the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS): longitudinal observations from the first trimester to 6 weeks postpartum of a Chinese cohort.

Lu Liu,Dong Roman Xu,Yongsheng Tong,Jingcheng Shi,Zhen Zeng,Wenjie Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2022.2052845

2022-01-01

Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract:Women who screened positive in EPDS differed from those screened negative in the characteristics in depressive symptoms. Intervention strategies focusing on the most frequent, serious and important symptoms (such as sadness and insomnia) may be worthwhile. Health practitioners should be trained to respond to a positive response to thoughts of self-harm, regardless of whether the women are screened positive or negative.
Application research on subscales of Edinburgh postnatal depression scale in psychological screening of high risk pregnant women

赵缨,王靖,施慎逊,沈蓓蓓,罗剑锋

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.10096493.2015.17.013

2015-01-01

Chinese Nursing Research

Abstract:Objective:To evaluate and to compare the application effect of the three subscales of EPDS for psy-chological screening of high risk pregnant women.Methods:A total of 842 high risk pregnant women from pre-natal clinics were selected to receive the EPDS assessment by the convenient sampling method.Then to calculate the sensitivity,specificity,the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC)of each subscale,so as to evaluate their screening capacity.Results:The total score of EPDS of high risk pregnant women was 4.90±3.84. The lack of emotion subscale score was 0.26±0.66.The anxiety subscale score was 3.33±2.31.The depression subscale score was 1.31 ±1.58.The area under ROC curves of the anxiety subscale and the depression scale were all bigger than 0.9.Showing the better screening effects.When the anxiety subscale considered 5 as the critical value,the depression scale considered 3 as the critical value,the sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value and negative value index could achieve a better balance.The scores of three subscale of EPDS had the posi-tive correlation with its total score(P<0.01).Conclusion:The psychological problems of high risk pregnant women can not be ignored.The EPDS subscales has fast,simple and efficient psychological screening effect.It is helpful to discover and to intervene the high risk group of postpartum depression as early as possible.
Universal screening of postpartum depression with Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale: A prospective observational study

Anne‐Laure Fijean,Marianne Marçais,Claire Banasiak,Olivier Morel,Sandra Dahlhoff,Marie‐France Olieric,Nicolas Mottet,Jonathan Epstein,Charline Bertholdt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15722

2024-06-06

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract:Objectives To assess the feasibility of universal screening of postpartum depression (PPD), using the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS) in the general population. To investigate the proportion of women identified as being at risk of PPD and with confirmed PPD or other mental disorders after a psychiatric consultation. Methods A multicenter prospective cohort study in four French maternities conducted between 2020 and 2023. All women aged over 18 years, who delivered following a singleton pregnancy after 37 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion. The exclusion criteria were pre‐existing psychiatric disorders such as depressive syndrome. The EPDS was completed at 8 weeks postpartum via an online self‐administered questionnaire. If the response to the questionnaire suggested a mental disorder, a psychiatric consultation was proposed to the women concerned. The endpoints were the proportion of women completing the EPDS, the EPDS score, the proportion of women at risk of PPD, the proportion of psychiatric consultation, and the subsequent diagnosis. Results The study included 923 women, of whom 55.0% (508/923) completed the EPDS. Among them, 28.1% (143/508) had an EPDS score of 10 or more, and 11.2% (57/508) received a psychiatric consultation. PPD was confirmed in 8.8% (5/57) of women. Other disorders detected were mood disorders, disorders specifically associated with stress, and anxiety/fear‐related disorders, in 33.3%, 28.1%, and 14.0% of the women, respectively. Conclusions Screening with self‐administered EPDS is feasible, with a good response rate, making it possible to suspect mental disorders, including PPD, and to offer psychological support when needed.

obstetrics & gynecology
Combined Use of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to Identify Antenatal Depression among Chinese Pregnant Women with Obstetric Complications

Ying Zhao,Irene Kane,Jing Wang,Beibei Shen,Jianfeng Luo,Shenxun Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.12.016

IF: 11.3

2014-01-01

Psychiatry Research

Abstract:The purpose of the present study was to evaluate antenatal depression screening employing two scales: the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for the population of Chinese pregnant women with obstetric complications. A convenience sample of 842 Chinese pregnant women with complications participated in this study. The PDSS total score correlated strongly with the EPDS total score (r=0.652, p=0.000). Each tool performed extremely well for detecting major and major/minor depressions with PDSS resulting in a better psychometric performance than EPDS (p<0.01). If combined use, the recommended EPDS cut-off score was 8/9 for major depression, at which the sensitivity (71.6%) and specificity (87.6%) were the best, and the recommended PDSS cut-off score was 79/80 for major depression, along with its best sensitivity (86.4%) and specificity (100%). The study concluded that EPDS and PDSS appear to be reliable assessments for major and minor depression among the Chinese pregnant women with obstetric complications. Combined use of these tools should consider lower cutoff scores to reduce the misdiagnosis and improve the screening validity.
The diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale without the self-harm item: Does culture matter?

Alberto Stefana,Loredana Cena,Trainini Alice,Gabriella Palumbo,Antonella Gigantesco,Fiorino Mirabella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.05.018

IF: 5.25

2024-05-05

Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract:Kim et al., 2015; Kirmayer and Groleau, 2001; Levis et al., 2019; Levis et al., 2020; Qiu et al., 2023.

psychiatry

Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) in spondyloarthritis: Prevalence and associated phenotype.

Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

The screening accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to detect perinatal depression with and without the self-harm item in pregnant and postpartum women

An empirical comparison of statistical methods for multiple cut-off diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) depression screening tool using published results vs individual participant data

[Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy of esophageal varices].

Data-driven methods distort optimal cutoffs and accuracy estimates of depression screening tools: a simulation study using individual participant data

The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Exploration of the psychometric properties of the EPDS-US, a validation study

Comparison of Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression - Depression subscale scores by administration mode: An individual participant data differential item functioning meta-analysis

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

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

Salmonellae and salmonellosis in captive reptiles.

Detection of Postnatal Depression

Depression Screening Tool Accuracy Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses: Data Contribution was Associated with Multiple Factors

640 Gb/s transmission of sixty-four 10 Gb/s WDM channels over 7200 km with 0.33 (bits/s)/Hz spectral efficiency

Relationship between Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) Scores in the Early Postpartum Period and Related Stress Coping Characteristics

Symptomatology in 1,112 women screened positive and negative using the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS): longitudinal observations from the first trimester to 6 weeks postpartum of a Chinese cohort.

Application research on subscales of Edinburgh postnatal depression scale in psychological screening of high risk pregnant women

Universal screening of postpartum depression with Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale: A prospective observational study

Combined Use of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to Identify Antenatal Depression among Chinese Pregnant Women with Obstetric Complications

The diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale without the self-harm item: Does culture matter?