SynthesisJournal of affective disorders2016
Summary diagnostic validity of commonly used maternal major depression disorder case finding instruments in the United States: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of affective disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Screening for perinatal depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-9): A systematic review and meta-analysis.General hospital psychiatryPooled it
- Satisfaction and Perceived Effectiveness on Herbal Decoctions for Postpartum Care: a cross-sectional survey of mother's experience.Journal of pharmacopuncture · 2023Article
- Maternal major depression disorder misclassification errors: Remedies for valid individual- and population-level inference.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
- Screening Depressive Disorders With Tree-Drawing Test.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Article
- Family physicians perceived role in perinatal mental health: an integrative review.BMC family practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMajor Depression Disorder (MDD) is common among mothers of young children. However, its detection remains low in primary-care and community-based settings in part due to the uncertainty regarding the validity of existing case-finding instruments. We conducted meta-analyses to estimate the diagnostic validity of commonly used maternal MDD case finding instruments in the United States.
methodsWe systematically searched three electronic bibliographic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from 1994 to 2015 to identify relevant published literature. Study eligibility and quality were evaluated using the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of case-finding instruments were generated using Bayesian hierarchical summary receiver operating models.
resultsOverall, 1130 articles were retrieved and 74 articles were selected for full-text review. Twelve articles examining six maternal MDD case-finding instruments met the eligibility criteria and were included in our meta-analyses. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were highest for the BDI-II (91%; 95% Bayesian Credible Interval (BCI): 68%; 99% and 89%; 95% BCI: 62%; 98% respectively) and EPDS10 (74%; 95% BCI: 46%; 91% and 97%; 95% BCI: 84%; 99% respectively) during the antepartum and postpartum periods respectively. LIMITATION: No meta-regression was conducted to examine the impact of study-level characteristics on the results. DISCUSSION: Diagnostic performance varied among instruments and between peripartum periods. These findings suggest the need for a judicious selection of maternal MDD case-finding instruments depending on the study population and target periods of assessment.
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.