ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Supporting routine cognitive reactivity assessment during the perinatal period: psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-lagged panel model of depressive mood and influencing factors in high-risk perinatal depression.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- The chain mediating effect of family function and resilience between cognitive reactivity and depression among postpartum women in China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- A longitudinal network analysis of interaction factors among Chinese women at high risk for perinatal depression.Midwifery · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIt is critical to find optimal forms to identify perinatal depression (PND) and its vulnerable factors and make them more applicable to depression screening. This study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Leiden Index of Depression Sensitivity (LEIDS-RR-CV) among perinatal women in China and determine the cut-off values for screening for high-risk depression.
methodsWomen in their third trimester of pregnancy and six weeks postpartum completed the LEIDS-RR-CV and a diagnostic reference standard online. We assessed the LEIDS-RR-CV using classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). We also assessed the test performance for cut-off scores using receiver operator characteristic analysis to further screen for high-risk depression at each time point.
resultsIn total, 396 (third trimester) and 321 (six weeks postpartum) women participated. Cronbach's alpha, two-week test-retest reliability, and marginal reliability for the scale were all greater than 0.8. It showed a five-factor model; the cut-off values were 58 (third trimester) and 60 (six weeks postpartum). The areas under the curve were acceptable (≥ 0.7), and the LEIDS-RR-CV was positively correlated with the total Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score (r = 0.52 and 0.56, p = 0.00), indicating its predictive validity. An IRT analysis further confirmed its discriminative validity.
conclusionsThe LEIDS-RR-CV was found to be reliable, valid, and can be used to quantify cognitive reactivity among perinatal Chinese women and for screening for high-risk depression during this period.
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.