Diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for detecting major depression in pregnant and postnatal women: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses
Year: 2015
Type: review
Study design: Study Protocol
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Studies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools often used data-driven methods to select optimal cut-offs. Typically, these studies report results from a small range of cut-off points around whatever cut-off score is identified as most accurate. When published data are combined in meta-analyses, estimates of accuracy for different cut-off points may be based on data from different studies, rather than data from all studies for each cut-off point. Thus, traditional meta-analyses may exaggerate accuracy estimates. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses synthesise data from all studies for each cut-off score to obtain accuracy estimates. The 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is commonly recommended for depression screening in the perinatal period. The primary objective of this IPD meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the EPDS to detect major depression among women during pregnancy and in the postpartum period across all potentially relevant cut-off scores, accounting for patient factors that may influence accuracy (age, pregnancy vs postpartum). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that include a diagnosis of major depression based on a validated structured or semistructured clinical interview administered within 2 weeks of (before or after) the administration of the EPDS will be included. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted for the full range of plausible cut-off values. Analyses will evaluate data from pregnancy and the postpartum period separately, as well as combining data from all women in a single model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will include journal articles and presentations to policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015024785.
Source: BMJ Open
Authors: Brett D Thombs, Andrea Benedetti, Lorie A Kloda, Brooke Levis, Kira E Riehm, Marleine Azar, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P A Ioannidis, Dean McMillan, Scott B Patten, Ian Shrier, Russell J Steele, Roy C Ziegelstein, Marcello Tonelli, Nicholas Mitchell, Liane Comeau, Joy Schinazi, Simone Vigod
Institutions: Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, University of York, Hull York Medical School, Stanford Medicine, Stanford University, University of Calgary, Johns Hopkins University, University of Alberta, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Université de Montréal, University of Toronto, Women's College Hospital, Women’s College Hospital Research and Innovation Institute
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $1,839
OpenAlex ID: W1815828991