SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021
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.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 148 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
148 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 245 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Prediction Models for Depression in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2026Pooled it
- An empirical comparison of statistical methods for multiple cut-off diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) depression screening tool using published results vs individual participant data.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Optimal cut-offs of depression screening tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Sex as a moderator of the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and depressive symptoms in older adults.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026Trial
- The impact of levodopa on post-stroke depression: the ESTREL-depression-study.European stroke journal · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Experiences of the attention training technique delivered in groups as treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with coronary heart disease: a qualitative study.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Effects of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block Combined with Perineural or IV Dexmedetomidine on Acute and Chronic Pain After Thoracoscopic Resection of Lung Lesions: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Trial
- Mindfulness-based intervention in patients with persistent pain in chest (MIPIC) of non-cardiac cause: a feasibility randomised control study.Open heart · 2022Trial
- Contribution of cognitive function and fatigue to health-related quality of life in patients withNeuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Emotional distress and clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a protocol for the prospective observational NeoFUSE-Lung cohort study.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Quality of Life, Mental Health and Executive Function in Individuals with Basal Cell Naevus Syndrome.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2026Article
- Article
- Functional and effective connectivity disruptions of the dopaminergic reward circuit in multiple sclerosis patients with depression.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Article
- A Pilot Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Parallel Group Trial Evaluating the Effect of 8 Week-Consumption of Guava Jelly Drink in Improving Cognition and Mental Well-Being in Working-Age Adults.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Mental Health Outcomes After Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Neuropsychiatric disorders in pulmonary fibrosis: from brain network alterations to inflammatory mechanisms and therapeutic implications.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2026Review
88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) to screen for major depression among people with physical health problems.
designSystematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycInfo, and Web of Science (from inception to 25 October 2018). REVIEW
methodsEligible datasets included HADS-D scores and major depression status based on a validated diagnostic interview. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were combined. For HADS-D cut-off thresholds of 5-15, a bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, in studies that used semi-structured diagnostic interviews (eg, Structured Clinical Interview for
resultsIndividual participant data were obtained from 101 of 168 eligible studies (60%; 25 574 participants (72% of eligible participants), 2549 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of seven or higher for semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews, and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (57 studies, 10 664 participants, 1048 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.87) and 0.78 (0.74 to 0.81) for a cut-off value of seven or higher, 0.74 (0.68 to 0.79) and 0.84 (0.81 to 0.87) for a cut-off value of eight or higher, and 0.44 (0.38 to 0.51) and 0.95 (0.93 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups and when published results from studies that did not contribute data were included.
conclusionsWhen screening for major depression, a HADS-D cut-off value of seven or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity. A cut-off value of eight or higher generated similar combined sensitivity and specificity but was less sensitive and more specific. To identify medically ill patients with depression with the HADS-D, lower cut-off values could be used to avoid false negatives and higher cut-off values to reduce false positives and identify people with higher symptom levels.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015016761.
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.