SynthesisInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2016
Sample sizes and precision of estimates of sensitivity and specificity from primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools: a survey of recently published studies.
Synthesis in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Sample sizes and precision of estimates of sensitivity and specificity from primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools: a survey of recently published studies.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2016Pooled it
- Minimally acceptable criteria and required sample size for an accuracy study of non-invasive prenatal testing of sickle cell disease in screen positive women in England: results of a decision tree model.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Article
- Association of Paternal Diabetes With Hemorrhagic Stroke in Bangladeshi Women: The MAGPIE Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Cutoff Selection for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Second Trimester Amniotic Fluid Angiotensinogen Levels Linked to Increased Fetal Birth Weight and Shorter Gestational Age in Term Pregnancies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Sample size determination for point-of-care COVID-19 diagnostic tests: a Bayesian approach.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Article
- 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
- 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
- Targeted test evaluation: a framework for designing diagnostic accuracy studies with clear study hypotheses.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2019Article
- 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
- Depression in people with type 2 diabetes: current perspectives.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2018Review
- 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
Abstract
Depression screening tools are useful to the extent that they accurately discriminate between depressed and non-depressed patients. Studies without enough patients to generate precise estimates make it difficult to evaluate accuracy. We conducted a survey of recently published studies on depression screening tool accuracy to evaluate the percentage with sample size calculations; the percentage that provided confidence intervals; and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity. We calculated 95% confidence intervals, if possible, when not provided. Only three of 89 studies (3%) described a viable sample size calculation. Only 30 studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate confidence intervals. Of 86 studies where 95% confidence intervals were provided or could be calculated, only seven (8%) had interval widths for sensitivity of ≤ 10%, whereas 53 (62%) had widths of ≥ 21%. Lower bounds of confidence intervals were < 80% for 84% of studies for sensitivity and 66% of studies for specificity. Overall, few studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools reported sample size calculations, and the number of patients in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates. The failure to provide confidence intervals in published reports may obscure these shortcomings. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.