ArticlePloS one2016
Risk of Bias from Inclusion of Currently Diagnosed or Treated Patients in Studies of Depression Screening Tool Accuracy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Recently Published Primary Studies and Meta-Analyses.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- 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
- Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Review
- Validity of the patient health questionnaires (phq-2 and phq-9) for screening depression among human immunodeficiency virus patients in Lahore, Pakistan.World journal of virology · 2022Article
- Sample size and precision of estimates in studies of depression screening tool accuracy: A meta-research review of studies published in 2018-2021.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2022Article
- Reducing Waste and Increasing the Usability of Psychiatry Research: The Family of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and One of Its Newest Members: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2018Article
- Decision curve analysis as a framework to estimate the potential value of screening or other decision-making aids.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018Article
- Validity of the PHQ-9 and PHQ-2 to screen for depression in nationwide primary care population in Latvia.Annals of general psychiatry · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepression screening can improve upon usual care only if screening tools accurately identify depressed patients who would not otherwise be recognized by healthcare providers. Inclusion of patients already being treated for depression in studies of screening tool accuracy would inflate estimates of screening accuracy and yield. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of primary studies of depression screening tool accuracy that were recently published in journals listed in MEDLINE, which appropriately excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients; and (2) whether recently published meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed or treated patients as a potential source of bias.
methodsMEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2013 through March 27, 2015 for primary studies and meta-analyses on depression screening tool accuracy.
resultsOnly 5 of 89 (5.6%) primary studies excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients from any analyses and only 3 (3.4%) from main analyses. In 3 studies that reported the number of patients excluded due to current treatment, the number of excluded patients was more than twice the number of newly identified depression cases. None of 5 meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients as a potential source of bias.
conclusionsThe inclusion of currently diagnosed and treated patients in studies of depression screening tool accuracy is a problem that limits the applicability of research findings for actual clinical practice. Studies are needed that evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools among only untreated patients who would potentially be screened in practice.
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.