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