Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962831›Full record

ReviewEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2024

Content agreement of depressive symptomatology in children and adolescents: a review of eighteen self-report questionnaires.

Ana Vilar, Néstor Sánchez-Martínez, Maria Jesús Blasco, Samantha Álvarez-Salazar, Santiago Batlle Vila, Carlos G Forero

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ana VilarDepartment of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8516-7042
Néstor Sánchez-MartínezDepartment of Medicine, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), C/Josep Trueta S/N (Hospital Universitari General de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195, Barcelona, Spain.
Maria Jesús BlascoCIBER Epidemiología Y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
Samantha Álvarez-SalazarDepartment of Medicine, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), C/Josep Trueta S/N (Hospital Universitari General de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195, Barcelona, Spain.
Santiago Batlle VilaInstitut de Neuropsiquiatria I Addiccions (INAD), Direcció Procés Atenció Comunitària I Programes Especials. Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Carlos G ForeroDepartment of Medicine, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), C/Josep Trueta S/N (Hospital Universitari General de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès, 08195, Barcelona, Spain. cgarciaf@uic.es.

Funding

Departament d'Innovació, Universitats i Empresa, Generalitat de Catalunya 2017 SGR 452Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI16/00165
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying major depression in children and adolescents is more challenging than in adults. Questionnaires are often used for screening or guiding clinical assessment. Several instruments of different lengths are used as equivalent measures in diagnostic decisions. In this paper, we explore to what extent 18 commonly used depression scales for children and adolescents explore depression clinical symptoms as established by standard DSM-5 diagnosis criteria. We analyzed scale content adequacy by examining the overlap between scale contents and consensus clinical symptoms, the diagnostic time frame for active symptom assessment, and readability for the target age group. The 18 scales encompassed 52 distinct symptoms. These scales included just 50% of clinical symptoms required for diagnosis. The content overlap was low; on average, 29% of symptoms coincide across scales. Half of the scales did not use the standard period for active symptom appraisal, and some did not include a period for assessment. The reading levels on six scales were inappropriate for the scale's target population age group. The substantial heterogeneity in defining the depressive syndrome, the low overlap among scales, different periods of a positive diagnosis, and mismatch of reading competence for detecting may lead to heterogeneity in clinical diagnoses when using different scales. Improving the content of self-report in terms of homogeneity of diagnostic criteria would lead to better diagnostic decisions and patient management.

Indexed as

Self ReportAdolescentChildDepressionDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersHumansMajor Depressive DisorderPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesChildren and adolescentsDiagnosisMajor depression disorderMeasurementScalesSymptom overlap

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.