Melancholic features (DSM-IV) predict but do not moderate response to antidepressants in major depression: an individual participant data meta-analysis of 1219 patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hissei Imai ◽  
Hisashi Noma ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Moderate Response

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of the Geriatric Depression Scale-30, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, Geriatric Depression Scale-5 and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e026598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Benedetti ◽  
Yin Wu ◽  
Brooke Levis ◽  
Machelle Wilchesky ◽  
Jill Boruff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geriatric Depression Scale ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Geriatric Depression ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Individual Participant

IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018104329.

scholarly journals Initial severity of depression and efficacy of cognitive–behavioural therapy: Individual-participant data meta-analysis of pill-placebo-controlled trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshi A. Furukawa ◽  
Erica S. Weitz ◽  
Shiro Tanaka ◽  
Steven D. Hollon ◽  
Stefan G. Hofmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Baseline Severity ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Initial Severity ◽  
The Difference

BackgroundThe influence of baseline severity has been examined for antidepressant medications but has not been studied properly for cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) in comparison with pill placebo.AimsTo synthesise evidence regarding the influence of initial severity on efficacy of CBT from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which CBT, in face-to-face individual or group format, was compared with pill-placebo control in adults with major depression.MethodA systematic review and an individual-participant data meta-analysis using mixed models that included trial effects as random effects. We used multiple imputation to handle missing data.ResultsWe identified five RCTs, and we were given access to individual-level data (n= 509) for all five. The analyses revealed that the difference in changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression between CBT and pill placebo was not influenced by baseline severity (interactionP= 0.43). Removing the non-significant interaction term from the model, the difference between CBT and pill placebo was a standardised mean difference of −0.22 (95% CI −0.42 to −0.02,P= 0.03,I2= 0%).ConclusionsPatients suffering from major depression can expect as much benefit from CBT across the wide range of baseline severity. This finding can help inform individualised treatment decisions by patients and their clinicians.

scholarly journals Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for screening to detect major depression: updated systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n2183
Author(s):  
Zelalem F Negeri ◽  
Brooke Levis ◽  
Ying Sun ◽  
Chen He ◽  
Ankur Krishnan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Reference Standards ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Health Questionnaire ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Patient Health ◽  
Individual Participant

Abstract Objective To update a previous individual participant data meta-analysis and determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the most commonly used depression screening tool in general practice, for detecting major depression overall and by study or participant subgroups. Design Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Medline In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science searched through 9 May 2018. Review methods Eligible studies administered the PHQ-9 and classified current major depression status using a validated semistructured diagnostic interview (designed for clinician administration), fully structured interview (designed for lay administration), or the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; a brief interview designed for lay administration). A bivariate random effects meta-analytic model was used to obtain point and interval estimates of pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity at cut-off values 5-15, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), fully structured interviews (eg, Composite International Diagnostic Interview), and the MINI. Meta-regression was used to investigate whether PHQ-9 accuracy correlated with reference standard categories and participant characteristics. Results Data from 44 503 total participants (27 146 additional from the update) were obtained from 100 of 127 eligible studies (42 additional studies; 79% eligible studies; 86% eligible participants). Among studies with a semistructured interview reference standard, pooled PHQ-9 sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) at the standard cut-off value of ≥10, which maximised combined sensitivity and specificity, were 0.85 (0.79 to 0.89) and 0.85 (0.82 to 0.87), respectively. Specificity was similar across reference standards, but sensitivity in studies with semistructured interviews was 7-24% (median 21%) higher than with fully structured reference standards and 2-14% (median 11%) higher than with the MINI across cut-off values. Across reference standards and cut-off values, specificity was 0-10% (median 3%) higher for men and 0-12 (median 5%) higher for people aged 60 or older. Conclusions Researchers and clinicians could use results to determine outcomes, such as total number of positive screens and false positive screens, at different PHQ-9 cut-off values for different clinical settings using the knowledge translation tool at www.depressionscreening100.com/phq . Study registration PROSPERO CRD42014010673.

scholarly journals 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

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m4022
Author(s):  
Brooke Levis ◽  
Zelalem Negeri ◽  
Ying Sun ◽  
Andrea Benedetti ◽  
Brett D Thombs
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Postpartum Women ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Diagnostic Interviews ◽  
Individual Participant

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document