SynthesisInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021
Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and 2-item (GAD-2) scales for detecting anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled 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
- Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for screening to detect major depression: updated systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2021Pooled it
- Association Between HbA1c Levels and Postpartum Depressive Symptoms: Insights from Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale Screening After Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A brief international screening tool for traumatic birth and childbirth-related PTSD: the city BiTS-short form.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Polysocial risk factors and trajectories of antenatal moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms: a retrospective cohort study in Shenzhen, China.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Cutoff Selection for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Does categorizing scale scores with cutoff points affect hypothesis-testing results?Discover mental health · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
- The overlapping relationship among depression, anxiety, and somatic symptom disorder and its impact on the quality of life of people with epilepsy.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSelectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10-13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs.
methodsWe conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs.
resultsFor the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: -0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10.
conclusionSelective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.
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.