Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21864914›Full record

ArticleJournal of affective disorders2012

A comparison of three screening tools to identify perinatal depression among low-income African American women.

S Darius Tandon, Fallon Cluxton-Keller, Julie Leis, Huynh-Nhu Le, Deborah F Perry

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Factors associated with completion of a behavioral intervention for caregivers of urban children with asthma.The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma · 2012
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S Darius TandonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: standon@jhmi.edu.
Fallon Cluxton-KellerJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States.
Julie LeisJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States.
Huynh-Nhu LeGeorge Washington University, Department of Psychology, United States.
Deborah F PerryGeorgetown University Center for Child and Human Development, United States.
Johns Hopkins University · USGeorgetown University · USGeorge Washington University · US

Funding

CHILD MH SERVICES AND SERVICE SYSTEM RESEARCHT32MH019545 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LEAF, PHILIP J · 1992 to 2017
$6.3M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the current study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of three depression screening tools among a low-income African American population of pregnant and recently delivered women enrolled in home visitation programs in a low-income urban community.

methodsNinety-five women enrolled in home visitation programs-32 who were pregnant and 63 with a child <6 months comprise the study sample. Each woman completed a structured clinical interview and three depression screening tools-the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II).

resultsOver a quarter of women (28.4%) were experiencing major depression. Each screening tool was highly accurate in detecting major depression and major or minor depression among prenatal and postpartum women, with areas under the curve (AUCs) >0.90. Sensitivities of all screening tools were improved when using cutoffs lower than those considered standard by instrument developers. LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited from home visitation programs in an urban context which may limit generalizability to other populations of low-income African American women. Given that no women during pregnancy met criteria for minor depression, it was not possible to determine optimal prenatal cutoff scores.

conclusionsThree depression screening tools-the EPDS, CES-D, and BDI-II-appear to be reliable and brief assessments of major and minor depression among low-income African American perinatal women. Providers using these tools should consider using lower cutoff scores to most effectively identify women in need of depression treatment.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanAdolescentAdultDepression, PostpartumDepressive DisorderFemaleHouse CallsHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMass ScreeningPeripartum PeriodPovertyPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPsychiatric Status Rating Scales

Identifiers

PMID21864914
PMCPMC3789596
OpenAlexW2079244103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.