ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2022
Sample size and precision of estimates in studies of depression screening tool accuracy: A meta-research review of studies published in 2018-2021.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Setting.Cureus · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Cutoff Selection for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- 'Optimal' cutoff selection in studies of depression screening tool accuracy using the PHQ-9, EPDS, or HADS-D: A meta-research study.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Review
- Transparency and completeness of reporting of depression screening tool accuracy studies: A meta-research review of adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2023Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDepression screening tool accuracy studies should be conducted with large enough sample sizes to generate precise accuracy estimates. We assessed the proportion of recently published depression screening tool diagnostic accuracy studies that reported sample size calculations; the proportion that provided confidence intervals (CIs); and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity. In addition, we assessed whether these results have improved since a previous review of studies published in 2013-2015.
methodsMEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018, through May 21, 2021.
resultsTwelve of 106 primary studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review. Thirty-six studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs. Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, seven (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of ≤10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of ≥21%. Eighty-four studies (82%) had lower bounds of CIs <80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity. These results were similar to those reported previously.
conclusionFew studies reported sample size calculations, and the number of included individuals in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates.
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.