Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screening tools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: a meta-research review.
Classification methods
Depression
Meta-analysis
Prevalence
Transparency
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 03 2019
21 03 2019
Historique:
received:
05
11
2018
accepted:
27
02
2019
entrez:
22
3
2019
pubmed:
22
3
2019
medline:
14
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Depression symptom questionnaires are commonly used to assess symptom severity and as screening tools to identify patients who may have depression. They are not designed to ascertain diagnostic status and, based on published sensitivity and specificity estimates, would theoretically be expected to overestimate prevalence. Meta-analyses sometimes estimate depression prevalence based on primary studies that used screening tools or rating scales rather than validated diagnostic interviews. Our objectives were to determine classification methods used in primary studies included in depression prevalence meta-analyses, if pooled prevalence differs by primary study classification methods as would be predicted, whether meta-analysis abstracts accurately describe primary study classification methods, and how meta-analyses describe prevalence estimates in abstracts. We searched PubMed (January 2008-December 2017) for meta-analyses that reported pooled depression prevalence in the abstract. For each meta-analysis, we included up to one pooled prevalence for each of three depression classification method categories: (1) diagnostic interviews only, (2) screening or rating tools, and (3) a combination of methods. In 69 included meta-analyses (81 prevalence estimates), eight prevalence estimates (10%) were based on diagnostic interviews, 36 (44%) on screening or rating tools, and 37 (46%) on combinations. Prevalence was 31% based on screening or rating tools, 22% for combinations, and 17% for diagnostic interviews. Among 2094 primary studies in 81 pooled prevalence estimates, 277 (13%) used validated diagnostic interviews, 1604 (77%) used screening or rating tools, and 213 (10%) used other methods (e.g., unstructured interviews, medical records). Classification methods pooled were accurately described in meta-analysis abstracts for 17 of 81 (21%) prevalence estimates. In 73 meta-analyses based on screening or rating tools or on combined methods, 52 (71%) described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders." Results were similar for meta-analyses in journals with impact factor ≥ 10. Most meta-analyses combined estimates from studies that used screening tools or rating scales instead of diagnostic interviews, did not disclose this in abstracts, and described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders " even though disorders were not assessed. Users of meta-analyses of depression prevalence should be cautious when interpreting results because reported prevalence may exceed actual prevalence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Depression symptom questionnaires are commonly used to assess symptom severity and as screening tools to identify patients who may have depression. They are not designed to ascertain diagnostic status and, based on published sensitivity and specificity estimates, would theoretically be expected to overestimate prevalence. Meta-analyses sometimes estimate depression prevalence based on primary studies that used screening tools or rating scales rather than validated diagnostic interviews. Our objectives were to determine classification methods used in primary studies included in depression prevalence meta-analyses, if pooled prevalence differs by primary study classification methods as would be predicted, whether meta-analysis abstracts accurately describe primary study classification methods, and how meta-analyses describe prevalence estimates in abstracts.
METHODS
We searched PubMed (January 2008-December 2017) for meta-analyses that reported pooled depression prevalence in the abstract. For each meta-analysis, we included up to one pooled prevalence for each of three depression classification method categories: (1) diagnostic interviews only, (2) screening or rating tools, and (3) a combination of methods.
RESULTS
In 69 included meta-analyses (81 prevalence estimates), eight prevalence estimates (10%) were based on diagnostic interviews, 36 (44%) on screening or rating tools, and 37 (46%) on combinations. Prevalence was 31% based on screening or rating tools, 22% for combinations, and 17% for diagnostic interviews. Among 2094 primary studies in 81 pooled prevalence estimates, 277 (13%) used validated diagnostic interviews, 1604 (77%) used screening or rating tools, and 213 (10%) used other methods (e.g., unstructured interviews, medical records). Classification methods pooled were accurately described in meta-analysis abstracts for 17 of 81 (21%) prevalence estimates. In 73 meta-analyses based on screening or rating tools or on combined methods, 52 (71%) described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders." Results were similar for meta-analyses in journals with impact factor ≥ 10.
CONCLUSIONS
Most meta-analyses combined estimates from studies that used screening tools or rating scales instead of diagnostic interviews, did not disclose this in abstracts, and described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders " even though disorders were not assessed. Users of meta-analyses of depression prevalence should be cautious when interpreting results because reported prevalence may exceed actual prevalence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30894161
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6
pmc: PMC6427845
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
Pays : Canada
Références
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Sep 15;2:16065
pubmed: 27629598
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001443
pubmed: 23690753
JAMA. 2015 Dec 8;314(22):2373-83
pubmed: 26647259
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;212(6):377-385
pubmed: 29717691
JAMA. 2016 Dec 6;316(21):2214-2236
pubmed: 27923088
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Oct;81(10):779-87
pubmed: 12362119
JAMA. 2006 Jun 28;295(24):2874-81
pubmed: 16804154
JAMA. 2016 Jan 12;315(2):150-63
pubmed: 26757464
J Psychosom Res. 2010 Oct;69(4):371-8
pubmed: 20846538
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 Nov-Dec;37(6):567-76
pubmed: 26195347
Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1987;236(4):214-22
pubmed: 3582430
Lancet. 2006 May 27;367(9524):1747-57
pubmed: 16731270
JAMA. 2005 May 18;293(19):2362-6
pubmed: 15900006
J Psychiatr Res. 1994 Jan-Feb;28(1):57-84
pubmed: 8064641
Lancet. 2013 Nov 9;382(9904):1575-86
pubmed: 23993280
Lancet. 2006 Oct 21;368(9545):1394
pubmed: 17055921
J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Aug;103:189-207
pubmed: 29886003
J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Dec;15(12):881-4
pubmed: 11119185
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Jul;13(36):1-145, 147-230
pubmed: 19624978
BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Feb 19;8:10
pubmed: 18284689
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016 Aug;31(8):837-57
pubmed: 26890937
Rev Clin Esp. 2015 Nov;215(8):454-7
pubmed: 26165166
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992 Aug;49(8):624-9
pubmed: 1637252
Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):851-8
pubmed: 17826170
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Mar;27(1):
pubmed: 29034525
AMA J Ethics. 2016 Jun 01;18(6):604-13
pubmed: 27322994
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981 Apr;38(4):408-13
pubmed: 7212971
JAMA. 2010 May 19;303(19):1961-9
pubmed: 20483973
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981 Apr;38(4):381-9
pubmed: 6260053
Psychiatry Res. 2001 Dec 31;105(3):265-71
pubmed: 11814545
CMAJ. 2018 Jan 15;190(2):E44-E49
pubmed: 29335262