Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087639›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2025

Agreement between CES-D and CIDI-SF scales of depression among older adults: a cross-sectional comparative study based on the longitudinal aging study in India, 2017-19.

T Muhammad, Soomi Lee, Manish Kumar, T V Sekher, Mathew Varghese

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

T MuhammadCenter for Healthy Aging, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. mkt5742@psu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1486-7038
Soomi LeeCenter for Healthy Aging, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Manish KumarPopulation Research Centre, Dharwad, 580004, Karnataka, India.
T V SekherDepartment of Family and Generations, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, 400088, Maharashtra, India.
Mathew VargheseSt John's Medical College, Bangalore, 560034, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the differences between various instruments for assessing depression will help researchers and health practitioners to choose a more appropriate tool and develop a framework to enhance resilience to mental health problems in the older population. The current study aimed to compare the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF) for measuring depressive symptoms in older Indians.

methodsData came from the first wave of the Longitudinal Aging Study in India (LASI) which was conducted during 2017-19. The final sample included 30,368 older individuals aged 60 years and above (15,824 women and 14,544 men). The level of agreement between the CES-D and CIIDI-SF instruments for depression classification was assessed using Kappa coefficients at various cut-off values. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between background characteristics and depressive symptoms assessed by both instruments.

resultsThe prevalence of depressive symptoms based on the CES-D instrument was higher than that of CIDI-SF (30.2% vs. 8.3%). The level of agreement between the CES-D and CIDI-SF for depression classification was 'none' to 'minimal' (κ = 0.04-0.24). Assuming the CIDI-SF scale as the "gold standard", with rising threshold values, sensitivity of the CES-D scale decreased while specificity increased. The CES-D scale yielded a sensitivity of 29-82% and specificity of 39-92% across cut-off values of 3 to 6. The Pearson correlation between the CIDI-SF and CES-D total scores was significant but weak (r =.20). Multivariable analysis showed that depressive symptoms were more prevalent among women, those with higher education, individuals living alone, those with diagnosed psychiatric disorders, and individuals with two or more chronic conditions, compared to men, those who were uneducated, those not living alone and healthier peers, when assessed using both CES-D and CIDI-SF scales. The associations of marital status, religion and wealth quintiles were significant only for depressive symptoms assessed using the CES-D scale.

conclusionsDepression cases identified by the CES-D showed poor agreement with those identified by the CIDI-SF. Therefore, the prevalence of depressive symptoms measured by the CESD is not interchangeable with that measured by the CIDI-SF. These findings suggest the importance of using both the CES-D and CIDI-SF in large population-based cohorts and surveillance surveys to obtain more accurate and nuanced understanding of depressive disorders across various subgroups of the older population.

Indexed as

AgingDepressionPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceCES-DCIDI-SFDepressive symptomsIndiaOlder adults

Identifiers

PMID40087639
PMCPMC11909840

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.