SynthesisBMC medicine2014
There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for depression in children and adolescents in primary care or non-mental health settings: a systematic review update.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for screening to detect major depression: updated systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) to screen for major depression: systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2020Pooled it
- Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- Depression Screening and Health Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2017Pooled it
- Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools to Detect Major Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2016Pooled it
- Improving the precision of depression diagnosis in general practice: a cluster-randomized trial.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Trial
- Effect of Depression Screening After Acute Coronary Syndromes on Quality of Life: The CODIACS-QoL Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2020Trial
- Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.Arthritis care & research · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Evaluation of primary care mental health integration and screening of anxiety and depression symptoms in Qatar from 2018 to 2023.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Response to attempted emulation of a randomised depression screening trial.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of health checkup with depression screening on depression treatment and outcomes in middle-aged and older adults: a target trial emulation study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- 'Optimal' cutoff selection in studies of depression screening tool accuracy using the PHQ-9, EPDS, or HADS-D: A meta-research study.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Review
- The efficacy of automated feedback after internet-based depression screening: Study protocol of the German, three-armed, randomised controlled trial DISCOVER.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- Screening for depression in children and adolescents: a protocol for a systematic review update.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available. This recommendation, however, is based on evidence from depression management programs conducted with patients already identified as depressed, even though screening is intended to identify depressed patients not already recognized or treated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether there is evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that depression screening benefits patients in primary care, using an explicit definition of screening.
methodsWe re-evaluated RCTs included in the 2009 USPSTF evidence review on depression screening, including only trials that compared depression outcomes between screened and non-screened patients and met the following three criteria: determined patient eligibility and randomized prior to screening; excluded patients already diagnosed with a recent episode of depression or already being treated for depression; and provided the same level of depression treatment services to patients identified as depressed in the screening and non-screening trial arms. We also reviewed studies included in a recent Cochrane systematic review, but not the USPSTF review; conducted a focused search to update the USPSTF review; and reviewed trial registries.
resultsOf the nine RCTs included in the USPSTF review, four fulfilled none of three criteria for a test of depression screening, four fulfilled one of three criteria, and one fulfilled two of three criteria. There were two additional RCTs included only in the Cochrane review, and each fulfilled one of three criteria. No eligible RCTs were found via the updated review.
conclusionsThe USPSTF recommendation to screen adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available is not supported by evidence from any RCTs that are directly relevant to the recommendation. The USPSTF should re-evaluate this recommendation. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/14 REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (#CRD42013004276).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.