Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18390942›Full record

SynthesisCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2008

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis.

Simon Gilbody, Trevor Sheldon, Allan House

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02935504 (PRogram In Support of Moms), which is not on this map. Cited by 162 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02935504 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

PRogram In Support of Moms (PRISM): A Pilot Group Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Massachusetts, WorcesterRan2014 to 2016Enrolled33ConditionsPerinatal DepressionArmsPRogram In Support of Moms (PRISM), MCPAP for Moms
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

162 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Universal mental health screening in pediatric primary care: a systematic review.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2013
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Recommendations on screening for depression in adults.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2013
    Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Case identification of depression in patients with chronic physical health problems: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 113 studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. International comparison of clinicians' ability to identify depression in primary care: meta-analysis and meta-regression of predictors.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences and Hull-York Medical School, University of York, United Kingdom. sg519@york.ac.uk
Trevor Sheldon
Allan House

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression.

methodsWe performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques.

resultsSixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20).

interpretationIf used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

Indexed as

DepressionHospitals, GeneralHumansMass ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID18390942
PMCPMC2276549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.