Diagnostic validity and added value of the geriatric depression scale for depression in primary care: A meta-analysis of GDS30 and GDS15

2010 ◽  
Vol 125 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 10-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Mitchell ◽  
Vicky Bird ◽  
Maria Rizzo ◽  
Nick Meader
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geriatric Depression Scale ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Diagnostic Validity ◽  
Geriatric Depression

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 Accuracy of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)-4 and GDS-5 for the screening of depression among older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0253899
Author(s):  
Ana Brañez-Condorena ◽  
David R. Soriano-Moreno ◽  
Alba Navarro-Flores ◽  
Blanca Solis-Chimoy ◽  
Mario E. Diaz-Barrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geriatric Depression Scale ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Limited Resource ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Geriatric Depression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain. Objective To assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults. Methods Until May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Results Twenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70–0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68–0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80–0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69–0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions. Conclusions We found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.

Validity of the Brazilian version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) among primary care patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Sampaio Castelo ◽  
João M. Coelho-Filho ◽  
André F. Carvalho ◽  
José W. O. Lima ◽  
Jamile C. S. Noleto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Geriatric Depression Scale ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Northeastern Brazil ◽  
Geriatric Depression ◽  
Primary Care Clinics ◽  
Brazilian Version ◽  
Major Depressive Episodes ◽  
Depressive Episodes

ABSTRACTBackground: The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of the Brazilian version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) with 30 (GDS-30), 15 (GDS-15), 10 (GDS-10), 4 (GDS-4) and 1 (GDS-1) items and to calculate the optimum cutoff points for identifying depression among elderly primary care subjects.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out involving 220 elderly patients recruited from four primary care clinics in northeastern Brazil. The following measurements were obtained: sociodemographic variables, Katz scale of independence in activities of daily living, and the GDS with 30, 15, 10, 4 and 1 item(s). A psychiatrist blinded to the results of the GDS applied the mood module of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV for the diagnosis of major depressive episodes as the “gold standard.”Results: The use of the cut-off point of 10/11 for the GDS-30 produced sensitivity and specificity rates of 92.0% (95% CI: 70–98) and 79% (95% CI: 73–85), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 49% and 98%, respectively. The optimum cut-off point for the GDS-15 was 4/5, at which sensitivity was 87% (95% CI: 71–95) and specificity was 82% (95% CI: 76–91), PPV was 51% and NPV was 97%. At the cut-off point of 3/4 the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the GDS-10 were 76% (95% CI: 60–89), 81% (95% CI: 75–87), 46% (95% CI: 33–59%), and 94% (95% CI 89–97%), respectively. The optimum cut-off point for the GDS-4 was 0/1, at which sensitivity was 84% (95% CI: 68–93%); specificity was 75% (95% CI; 68–91%); PPV was 41% and NPV was 96%. For the GDS-1, sensitivity was 47%, specificity was 96%; PPV was 69% and NPV was 90%.Conclusions: The GDS-30, GDS-15, GDS-10 and GDS-4 proved to be good screening instruments for depression in primary care clinics in Brazil, whereas the GDS-1 failed to perform adequately.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document