scholarly journals Depression screening tools in persons with epilepsy: A systematic review of validated tools

Epilepsia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 695-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Gill ◽  
Sara Lukmanji ◽  
Kirsten M. Fiest ◽  
Scott B. Patten ◽  
Samuel Wiebe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening

The psychometric properties of depression screening tools in primary healthcare settings: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 225 ◽  
pp. 503-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarira El-Den ◽  
Timothy F. Chen ◽  
Yuh-Lin Gan ◽  
Eling Wong ◽  
Claire L. O’Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Healthcare Settings

scholarly journals Technology-assisted depression screening tools for patients with cancer: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e041878
Author(s):  
Maria Isabel Lazaro-Escudero ◽  
Camila Alanna Burgos-Cardona ◽  
Karina Acevedo-Fernández ◽  
Eida Maria Castro-Figueroa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionAmong patients with cancer, depression is still under-detected. The use of technology-assisted screening tools is rising; however, little is known about the uptake of these devices as depression screening tools among patients with cancer.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The review is registered with PROSPERO and any adjustments to the protocol will be traced. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the most common and feasible depression screening information technology (IT) delivery models among patients with cancer, (2) identify the most common depression screening instrument used in IT devices and (3) describe the published technology-assisted depression screening tools for patients with cancer. PubMed, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar databases will be used. PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) guidelines will inform the inclusion criteria. Two researchers will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article review and data extraction. In the case of a disagreement, a third reviewer will make the final decision. Title/abstract screening will be conducted using a screening tool prepared by the researchers. Articles will be included for review if: (1) the study includes patients with cancer, cancer survivors and/or patients on remission, (2) depression is screened using technology and (3) technology-assisted depression screening effectiveness, efficacy, feasibility and/or acceptance is addressed. The quality of the articles will be assessed using the Methodological Index For Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS, maximum score 24) through independent coding of reviewers.Ethics and disseminationThis research is exempt from ethics approval given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which uses published data. Findings from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42019121048.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools to Detect Major Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (12) ◽  
pp. 746-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Roseman ◽  
Lorie A. Kloda ◽  
Nazanin Saadat ◽  
Kira E. Riehm ◽  
Abel Ickowicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Bound ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Small Sample Sizes

Objective: Depression screening among children and adolescents is controversial, and no clinical trials have evaluated benefits and harms of screening programs. A requirement for effective screening is a screening tool with demonstrated high accuracy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of depression screening instruments to detect major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents. Method: Data sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HaPI, and LILACS databases from 2006 to September 30, 2015. Eligible studies compared a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for MDD and reported accuracy data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. Results: We identified 17 studies with data on 20 depression screening tools. Few studies examined the accuracy of the same screening tools. Cut-off scores identified as optimal were inconsistent across studies. Width of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for sensitivity ranged from 9% to 55% (median 32%), and only 1 study had a lower bound 95% CI ≥80%. For specificity, 95% CI width ranged from 2% to 27% (median 9%), and 3 studies had a lower bound ≥90%. Methodological limitations included small sample sizes, exploratory data analyses to identify optimal cut-offs, and the failure to exclude children and adolescents already diagnosed or treated for depression. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that any depression screening tool and cut-off accurately screens for MDD in children and adolescents. Screening could lead to overdiagnosis and the consumption of scarce health care resources.

scholarly journals Depression Screening Tools for Patients with Kidney Failure

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 1785-1795
Author(s):  
Karli Kondo ◽  
Jennifer R. Antick ◽  
Chelsea K. Ayers ◽  
Devan Kansagara ◽  
Pavan Chopra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Beck Depression Inventory ◽  
Kidney Failure ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Patient Health Questionnaire ◽  
Health Questionnaire ◽  
Patient Health

Background and objectivesPatients with kidney failure experience depression at rates higher than the general population. Despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ ESRD Quality Incentive Program requirements for routine depression screening for patients with kidney failure, no clear guidance exists.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsFor this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and other databases from inception to June 2020. Two investigators screened all abstracts and full text. We included studies assessing patients with kidney failure and compared a tool to a clinical interview or another validated tool (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory II). We abstracted data related to sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the curve. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.ResultsA total of 16 studies evaluated the performance characteristics of depression assessment tools for patients with kidney failure. The Beck Depression Inventory II was by far the best studied. A wide range of thresholds were reported. Shorter tools in the public domain such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 and Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (adults over 60) performed well but were not well studied. Short tools such as the Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen may be a good option for an initial screen.ConclusionsThere is limited research evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of most screening tools for depression in patients with kidney failure, and existing studies may not be generalizable to US populations. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodology quality and/or reporting. Future research should target widely used, free tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020140227.

Malnutrition screening tools in gastrointestinal cancer: A systematic review of concurrent validity

2021 ◽  
pp. 101627
Author(s):  
Irene Deftereos ◽  
Aleksandra Djordjevic ◽  
Vanessa M. Carter ◽  
Jacqueline McNamara ◽  
Justin MC. Yeung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancer ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Screening Tools

scholarly journals Characteristics of patients who had a stroke not initially identified during emergency prehospital assessment: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-209607
Author(s):  
Stephanie P Jones ◽  
Janet E Bray ◽  
Josephine ME Gibson ◽  
Graham McClelland ◽  
Colette Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Visual Disturbance ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
False Negatives ◽  
Presenting Symptoms ◽  
Ischaemic Attack ◽  
Stroke Type ◽  
Key Terms

BackgroundAround 25% of patients who had a stroke do not present with typical ‘face, arm, speech’ symptoms at onset, and are challenging for emergency medical services (EMS) to identify. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the characteristics of acute stroke presentations associated with inaccurate EMS identification (false negatives).MethodWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed from 1995 to August 2020 using key terms: stroke, EMS, paramedics, identification and assessment. Studies included: patients who had a stroke or patient records; ≥18 years; any stroke type; prehospital assessment undertaken by health professionals including paramedics or technicians; data reported on prehospital diagnostic accuracy and/or presenting symptoms. Data were extracted and study quality assessed by two researchers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies V.2 tool.ResultsOf 845 studies initially identified, 21 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 6934 stroke and Transient Ischaemic Attack patients included, there were 1774 (26%) false negative patients (range from 4 (2%) to 247 (52%)). Commonly documented symptoms in false negative cases were speech problems (n=107; 13%–28%), nausea/vomiting (n=94; 8%–38%), dizziness (n=86; 23%–27%), changes in mental status (n=51; 8%–25%) and visual disturbance/impairment (n=43; 13%–28%).ConclusionSpeech problems and posterior circulation symptoms were the most commonly documented symptoms among stroke presentations that were not correctly identified by EMS (false negatives). However, the addition of further symptoms to stroke screening tools requires valuation of subsequent sensitivity and specificity, training needs and possible overuse of high priority resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document