Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis

Autor: Neupane, D., Levis, B., Bhandari, P.M., Thombs, B.D., Benedetti, A., Sun, Y., He, C., Wu, Y., Krishnan, A., Negeri, Z., Imran, M., Rice, D.B., Riehm, K.E., Saadat, N., Azar, M., Sanchez, T.A., Chiovitti, M.J., Levis, A.W., Boruff, J.T., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Kloda, L.A., Patten, S.B., Shrier, I., Ziegelstein, R.C., Comeau, L., Mitchell, N.D., Tonelli, M., Vigod, S.N., Akena, D.H., Alvarado, R., Arroll, B., Bakare, M.O., Baradaran, H.R., Beck, C.T., Bombardier, C.H., Bunevicius, A., Carter, G., Chagas, M.H., Chaudron, L.H., Cholera, R., Clover, K., Conwell, Y., Castro e Couto, T., de Man-van Ginkel, J.M., Delgadillo, J., Fann, J.R., Favez, N., Fung, D., Garcia-Esteve, L., Gelaye, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Hyphantis, T., Inagaki, M., Ismail, K., Jetté, N., Khalifa, D.S., Khamseh, M.E., Kohlhoff, J., Kozinszky, Z., Kusminskas, L., Liu, S.-I., Lotrakul, M., Loureiro, S.R., Löwe, B., Sidik, S.M., Nakić Radoš, S., Osório, F.L., Pawlby, S.J., Pence, B.W., Rochat, T.J., Rooney, A.G., Sharp, D.J., Stafford, L., Su, K.-P., Sung, S.C., Tadinac, M., Darius Tandon, S., Thiagayson, P., Töreki, A., Torres-Giménez, A., Turner, A., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M., Vega Dienstmaier, Johann Martín, Vöhringer, P.A., White, J., Whooley, M.A., Winkley, K., Yamada, M., DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration
Přispěvatelé: Clinical Psychology, World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center, APH - Global Health, APH - Mental Health
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Astrophysics::High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena
Bivariate analysis
Patient Health Questionnaire
Sensitivity and Specificity
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
male
diagnostic test accuracy
individual participant data meta‐analysis
meta‐analysis
publication bias
selective cutoff reporting
Bias
Statistics
Humans
Cutoff
Medicine
controlled study
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
diagnostic test accuracy study
human
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Depressive Disorder
Major
business.industry
adult
Individual participant data
article
Original Articles
Publication bias
Random effects model
individual participant data meta-analysis
030227 psychiatry
meta-analysis
Psychiatry and Mental health
female
Meta-analysis
diagnostic accuracy
Original Article
business
030217 neurology & neurosurgery
meta analysis
Patient Health Questionnaire 9
Zdroj: International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 30(3):e1873, 1-15. John Wiley and Sons Ltd
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration 2021, ' Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale : Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis ', International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, vol. 30, no. 3, e1873, pp. 1-15 . https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1873
ISSN: 1557-0657
1049-8931
DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1873
Popis: Objectives\ud \ud Selectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud For the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: