ArticleClinical epidemiology2017
The criterion validity of the web-based Major Depression Inventory when used on clinical suspicion of depression in primary care.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Thriving Through Stressful Life Events with Nature: A Mixed-Method Study on Tending Indoor Plants and Rumination Resilience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Trial
- Improving the precision of depression diagnosis in general practice: a cluster-randomized trial.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Depression, anxiety, and sleep attributes: A cross-sectional study of chiropractic college students.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2025Article
- The Major Depression Inventory for diagnosing according to DSM-5 and ICD-11: Psychometric properties and validity in a Swedish general population.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Article
- Health-related quality of life among transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy patients.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- The Current State and Validity of Digital Assessment Tools for Psychiatry: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2022Review
- Response to the Letter to the Editor: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Assessment of Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Systemic Sclerosis.Archives of rheumatology · 2020Article
- Lolland-Falster Health Study: Study protocol for a household-based prospective cohort study.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2020Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) as a Depression Severity Scale in Chinese Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Findings From the MEDEA FAR-EAST Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Major Depression Inventory (MDI) is widely used in Danish general practice as a screening tool to assess depression in symptomatic patients. Nevertheless, no validation studies of the MDI have been performed. The aim of this study was to validate the web-based version of the MDI against a fully structured telephone interview in a population selected on clinical suspicion of depression (ie, presence of two or three core symptoms of depression) in general practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsGeneral practitioners (GPs) invited consecutive persons suspected of depression to complete the web-based MDI in a primary care setting. The validation was based on the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI) by phone. GPs in the 22 practices in our study included 132 persons suspected of depression. Depression was rated as yes/no according to the MDI and M-CIDI. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) algorithms of the MDI were examined.
resultsAccording to the M-CIDI interview, 87.9% of the included population was depressed and 64.4% was severely depressed. According to the MDI scale, 59.1% of the population was depressed and 31.8% was severely depressed. The sensitivity of the MDI for depression was 62.1% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 52.6-70.9) and the specificity was 62.5% (95% CI: 35.4-84.8). The sensitivity for severe depression was 42.2% (95% CI: 30.6-52.4) and the specificity was 85.1% (95% CI: 71.7-93.8). The receiver operating curve showed an area under the curve of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.52-0.81) for any depression and of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.63-0.81) for severe depression.
conclusionThe MDI is a conservative instrument for diagnosing ICD-10 depression in a clinical setting compared to the M-CIDI interview. Only a few false-positive diagnoses were identified when the MDI was used on clinical suspicion of depression.
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.