Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26656018›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions for the identification of depression: a diagnostic meta-analysis.

Katharine Bosanquet, Della Bailey, Simon Gilbody, Melissa Harden, Laura Manea, Sarah Nutbrown, Dean McMillan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03897816 (Maternal Mood, Anxiety or Personality Disorders and Their Offspring Mental Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03897816 completednot on this map

Maternal Mood, Anxiety or Personality Disorders and Their Offspring Mental Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Milano BicoccaRan2011 to 2019Enrolled450ConditionsIntergenerational Relations
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Primary Care: A Study of General Practices in England.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2021
    Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katharine BosanquetDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Della BaileyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Laura ManeaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Sarah NutbrownDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Dean McMillanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
University of York · GBHull York Medical School · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/19/04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions in the identification of depression; and, to examine the effect of an additional 'help' question.

designSystematic review with random effects bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. Search strategies included electronic databases, examination of reference lists, and forward citation searches. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were included that provided sufficient data to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions against a gold standard diagnosis of major depression. DATA EXTRACTION: Descriptive information, methodological quality criteria, and 2 × 2 contingency tables were extracted.

resultsTen studies met inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) and pooled specificity was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.74). Heterogeneity was low (I(2)=24.1%). Primary care subgroup analysis gave broadly similar results. Four of the ten studies provided information on the effect of an additional help question. The addition of this question did not consistently improve specificity while retaining high sensitivity as reported in the original validation study.

conclusionsThe two-item Whooley questions have high sensitivity and modest specificity in the detection of depression. The current evidence for the use of an additional help question is not consistent and there is, as yet, insufficient data to recommend its use for screening or case finding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009695.

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesDepressionHumansModels, StatisticalSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and Questionnairesdiagnostic accuracydiagnostic meta-analysismajor depressionscreeningWhooley questions

Identifiers

PMID26656018
PMCPMC4679987
OpenAlexW2271993325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.