Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Levis, Brooke
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: McMillan, Dean, Sun, Ying, He, Chen, Rice, Danielle B., Krishnan, Ankur, Wu, Yin, Azar, Marleine, Sanchez, Tatiana A., Figueiredo, Bárbara
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/61631
Resumo: Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.
id RCAP_d97335e5f3c45f173f9f884056db9202
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/61631
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysisDepressive disordersDiagnostic interviewsEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScaleIndividual participant data meta-analysisMajor depressionScience & TechnologyObjectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Ms. Levis was supported by a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Awards. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Wu was supported by an Utting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Ms. Azar was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Masters Training Award. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The primary study by Alvarado et al. was supported by the Ministry of Health of Chile. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. Prof. Robertas Bunevicius, MD, PhD (1958–2016) was principal investigator of the primary study by Bunevicius et al. but passed away and was unable to participate in this project. The primary study by Couto et al. was supported by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 444254/2014-5) and the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG; Grant APQ-01954-14). The primary study by Chaudron et al. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant K23 MH64476). The primary study by Figueira et al. was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 403433/2004-5). The primary study by de Figueiredo et al. was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Fernandes et al. was supported by grants from the Child: Care Health and Development Trust and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and by the Ashok Ranganathan Bursary from Exeter College, University of Oxford. Dr. Fernandes was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academic clinical fellowship. The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Fisher et al. was supported by a grant under the Invest to Grow Scheme from the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The primary study by Garcia-Esteve et al. was supported by Grant 7/98 from the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Women's Institute, Spain. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grants RP-PG-1210-12002 and RPDG-1108-10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Roomruangwong et al. was supported by the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund 2013 of Chulalongkorn University (CU-56-457-HR). The primary study by Naki c Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports. The primary study by Navarro et al. was supported by Grant 13/00 from the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs, Institute of Women, Spain. The primary study by Usuda et al. was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (primary investigator: Daisuke Nishi, MD, PhD) and by an Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders from the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan. Dr. Robertson-Blackmore was supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and NIMH Grant K23MH080290. The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Rowe et al. was supported by the diamond Consortium, beyondblue Victorian Centre of Excellence in Depression and Related Disorders. The primary study by Comasco et al. was supported by funds from the Swedish Research Council (VR: 521-2013-2339, VR: 523-2014-2342), the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS: 2011-0627), the Marta Lundqvist Foundation (2013, 2014), and the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-331991). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Su et al. was supported by grants from the Department of Health (DOH94F044 and DOH95F022) and the China Medical University and Hospital (CMU94-105, DMR-92-92, and DMR94-46). The primary study by Tandon et al. was supported by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc. and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc. The primary study by Yonkers et al. was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant (5 R01HD045735). Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards.Wiley[et al.]Universidade do MinhoLevis, BrookeMcMillan, DeanSun, YingHe, ChenRice, Danielle B.Krishnan, AnkurWu, YinAzar, MarleineSanchez, Tatiana A.Figueiredo, Bárbara2019-09-302019-09-30T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/61631eng1049-89311557-065710.1002/mpr.180331568624info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T12:10:34Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/61631Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T19:02:13.559879Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
title Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
spellingShingle Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
Levis, Brooke
Depressive disorders
Diagnostic interviews
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Individual participant data meta-analysis
Major depression
Science & Technology
title_short Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
title_sort Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: an individual participant data meta-analysis
author Levis, Brooke
author_facet Levis, Brooke
McMillan, Dean
Sun, Ying
He, Chen
Rice, Danielle B.
Krishnan, Ankur
Wu, Yin
Azar, Marleine
Sanchez, Tatiana A.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
author_role author
author2 McMillan, Dean
Sun, Ying
He, Chen
Rice, Danielle B.
Krishnan, Ankur
Wu, Yin
Azar, Marleine
Sanchez, Tatiana A.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv [et al.]
Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Levis, Brooke
McMillan, Dean
Sun, Ying
He, Chen
Rice, Danielle B.
Krishnan, Ankur
Wu, Yin
Azar, Marleine
Sanchez, Tatiana A.
Figueiredo, Bárbara
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Depressive disorders
Diagnostic interviews
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Individual participant data meta-analysis
Major depression
Science & Technology
topic Depressive disorders
Diagnostic interviews
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Individual participant data meta-analysis
Major depression
Science & Technology
description Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-09-30
2019-09-30T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/1822/61631
url http://hdl.handle.net/1822/61631
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1049-8931
1557-0657
10.1002/mpr.1803
31568624
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799132422750601216

Registros relacionados