ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2020
Correspondence Between the Neuropsychiatric Interview M.I.N.I. and the BDI-II and MADRS-S Self-Rating Instruments as Diagnostic Tools in Primary Care Patients with Depression.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of psychological problems among individuals and couples during assisted reproductive technology(ART) treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and correlates of current suicidal ideation in women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder.BMC women's health · 2022Trial
- Evaluating the necessity of booster sessions in relapse prevention for depression: a longitudinal study.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A nationwide cohort study on the association between intensive care treatments and mental distress linked psychiatric disorders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Psychiatric comorbidity in emergency general surgery patients: a prospective observational study.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2023Article
- A comparison of the 33-item Hypomania Checklist with the 33-item Hypomania Checklist-external assessment for the detection of bipolar disorder in adolescents.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2021Article
- Validity of self-reporting depression in the Tabari cohort study population.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2020Article
- Criterion and construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) to measure depression in patients with cancer: The contribution of somatic items.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the correspondence between the diagnoses received by patients with symptoms of common mental disorder attending primary care, based on the diagnostic instrument International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) and the self-assessment instruments such as Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale - self-rating version (MADRS-S), respectively.
designData were collected from a prospective observational study, ADAS, between 2014 and 2015.
settingTwenty-eight primary care centers in Region Västra Gotaland, Sweden. PATIENTS: A total of 192 patients, 18-60 years of age, on sick leave ≥14 days, with mild/moderate depression, anxiety syndrome, and stress-related mental illness were included.
main outcome measuresScores of the assessment instruments (BDI-II and MADRS-S) on inclusion, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for BDI-II and MADRS-S, respectively, with M.I.N.I used as diagnostic instrument.
resultsUsing M.I.N.I. as gold standard, the BDI-II and MADRS-S showed almost the same sensitivity (86.9% and 87.4%, respectively), but specificity for MADRS-S was doubled compared to BDI-II (36% and 18%, respectively). There was a significant association between MADRS-S and M.I.N.I. (p=0.027). However, the same analysis between BDI and M.I.N.I. was not statistically significant (p= 0.635). NPV and PPV were calculated from assumed prevalences (10% and 75%) and were higher for MADRS-S compared to BDI-II. The PPV differences were between 2% and 7% and NPV differences were between 3% and 19%.
conclusionWith M.I.N.I. as gold standard, MADRS-S performs better than BDI-II as a self-assessment tool in the primary care context for depression diagnostics.
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.