Title |
The diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-124 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Brett D Thombs, Andrea Benedetti, Lorie A Kloda, Brooke Levis, Ioana Nicolau, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P A Ioannidis, Dean McMillan, Scott B Patten, Ian Shrier, Russell J Steele, Roy C Ziegelstein |
Abstract |
Major depressive disorder (MDD) may be present in 10%-20% of patients in medical settings. Routine depression screening is sometimes recommended to improve depression management. However, studies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools have typically used data-driven, exploratory methods to select optimal cutoffs. Often, these studies report results from a small range of cutoff points around whatever cutoff score is most accurate in that given study. When published data are combined in meta-analyses, estimates of accuracy for different cutoff points may be based on data from different studies, rather than data from all studies for each possible cutoff point. As a result, traditional meta-analyses may generate exaggerated estimates of accuracy. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses can address this problem by synthesizing data from all studies for each cutoff score to obtain diagnostic accuracy estimates. The nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the shorter PHQ-2 and PHQ-8 are commonly recommended for depression screening. Thus, the primary objectives of our IPD meta-analyses are to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9, PHQ-8, and PHQ-2 to detect MDD among adults across all potentially relevant cutoff scores. Secondary analyses involve assessing accuracy accounting for patient factors that may influence accuracy (age, sex, medical comorbidity). |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
Researcher | 17 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
Other | 32 | 23% |
Unknown | 29 | 21% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 26% |
Psychology | 24 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
Mathematics | 5 | 4% |
Engineering | 4 | 3% |
Other | 20 | 14% |
Unknown | 39 | 28% |