Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014572›Full record

SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024

Identification of depression and anxiety during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy.

Elisabet Rondung, Pamela Massoudi, Katri Nieminen, Birgitta Wickberg, Nathalie Peira, Rebecca Silverstein, Klas Moberg, Martina Lundqvist, Åke Grundberg, Monica Hultcrantz

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elisabet RondungDepartment of Psychology and Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5109-106X
Pamela MassoudiDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8222-7978
Katri NieminenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Norrköping and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6014-4327
Birgitta WickbergDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nathalie PeiraDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rebecca SilversteinSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
Klas MobergSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
Martina LundqvistSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
Åke GrundbergSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
Monica HultcrantzDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
SBU - Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SELinköping University · SEMid Sweden University · SE

Funding

The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDepression and anxiety are significant contributors to maternal perinatal morbidity and a range of negative child outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to review and assess the diagnostic test accuracy of selected screening tools (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale [EPDS], EPDS-3A, Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]-, PHQ-2, Matthey Generic Mood Question [MGMQ], Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7], GAD-2, and the Whooley questions) used to identify women with antenatal depression or anxiety in Western countries. MATERIAL AND

methodsOn January 16, 2023, we searched 10 databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, CRD Database, Embase, Epistemonikos, International HTA Database, KSR Evidence, Ovid MEDLINE, PROSPERO and PsycINFO); the references of included studies were also screened. We included studies of any design that compared case-identification with a relevant screening tool to the outcome of a diagnostic interview based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth or fifth edition (DSM-IV or DSM-5), or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10). Diagnoses of interest were major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-texts for relevance and evaluated the risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Data extraction was performed by one person and checked by another team member for accuracy. For synthesis, a bivariate model was used. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021236333.

resultsWe screened 8276 records for eligibility and included 16 original articles reporting on diagnostic test accuracy: 12 for the EPDS, one article each for the GAD-2, MGMQ, PHQ-9, PHQ-2, and Whooley questions, and no articles for the EPDS-3A or GAD-7. Most of the studies had moderate to high risk of bias. Ten of the EPDS articles provided data for synthesis at cutoffs ≥10 to ≥14 for diagnosing major depressive disorder. Cutoff ≥10 gave the optimal combined sensitivity (0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.90) and specificity (0.87, 95% CI: 0.79-0.92).

conclusionsFindings from the meta-analysis suggest that the EPDS alone is not perfectly suitable for detection of major depressive disorder during pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the other instruments, therefore, their usefulness for identification of women with depression and anxiety during pregnancy remains very uncertain. At present, case-identification with any tool may best serve as a complement to a broader dialogue between healthcare professionals and their patients.

Indexed as

Depression, PostpartumMajor Depressive DisorderAnxietyAnxiety DisordersChildDepressionFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyanxietydepressionidentificationmeta-analysispregnancyscreeningsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38014572
PMCPMC10867370
OpenAlexW4389085620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.