Combine searches by placing the search numbers in the top search box and pressing the search button. An example search might look like (#1 or #2) and (#3 or #4)
Latest & greatest articles for Depression Screening Tools
The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on Depression Screening Tools or other clinical topics then use Trip today.
This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on Depression Screening Tools and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.
What is Trip?
Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.
Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.
As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.
For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via firstname.lastname@example.org
A systematic review of online depressionscreeningtools for use in the South African context. According to the World Health Organization, the alarming increase in rates of depression globally has become a serious concern. In 2010, the prevalence rate of depression in South Africa was 4.6%. Given the context of South Africa where the majority of the population have limited access to healthcare facilities and 59.3% of the population have access to the Internet, an online depressionscreening (...) tool would have much to offer.To determine whether online depressionscreeningtools would be suitable for use in South Africa.This study presents a systematic review of online depressionscreeningtools to determine whether one would be suitable for use in South Africa. Articles were accessed from seven electronic databases from 1970 to 2018. All articles included in the review were critically appraised.A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. From the results, there was only one
Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screeningtools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: a meta-research review. Depression symptom questionnaires are commonly used to assess symptom severity and as screeningtools 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 screeningtools 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
Sample sizes and precision of estimates of sensitivity and specificity from primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools: a survey of recently published studies. Depressionscreeningtools are useful to the extent that they accurately discriminate between depressed and non-depressed patients. Studies without enough patients to generate precise estimates make it difficult to evaluate accuracy. We conducted a survey of recently published studies on depressionscreening (...) provided or could be calculated, only seven (8%) had interval widths for sensitivity of ≤ 10%, whereas 53 (62%) had widths of ≥ 21%. Lower bounds of confidence intervals were < 80% for 84% of studies for sensitivity and 66% of studies for specificity. Overall, few studies on the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools reported sample size calculations, and the number of patients in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates. The failure to provide confidence
Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools? A review of meta-analyses. Database searches for studies of diagnostic test accuracy are notoriously difficult to filter, highly resource-intensive, and a potential barrier to quality evidence synthesis. We examined published meta-analyses of depressionscreeningtool accuracy to evaluate the (1) proportion of included primary studies found in any online database (...) in the original meta-analyses that were indexed in MEDLINE; (2) the proportion of patients from MEDLINE-indexed studies; and (3) the proportion of depression cases from studies indexed in MEDLINE.MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2014 for meta-analyses in any language on the accuracy of depressionscreening tools.We identified 16 eligible meta-analyses that included 398 primary study citations, which had been identified via an online database in the original meta
Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depressionscreeningtool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement. Meta-analyses that are conducted rigorously and reported completely and transparently can provide accurate evidence to inform the best possible healthcare decisions. Guideline makers have raised concerns about the utility of existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools. The objective of our (...) study was to evaluate the transparency and completeness of reporting in meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools using the PRISMA tool adapted for diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses.We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools. Two reviewers independently assessed the transparency in reporting using the PRISMA tool with appropriate
RE: "Selective Cutoff Reporting in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Comparison of Conventional and Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analyses of the Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 DepressionScreeningTool". 28978197 2019 04 29 2019 04 29 1476-6256 186 7 2017 10 01 American journal of epidemiology Am. J. Epidemiol. RE: "Selective Cutoff Reporting in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Comparison of Conventional and Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analyses of the Patient Health Questionnaire (...) - 9 DepressionScreeningTool". 894 10.1093/aje/kwx275 Rücker Gerta G Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Faculty and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Steinhauser Susanne S Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Schumacher Martin M Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Faculty and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. eng Journal Article Research
Methodological quality of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools. Concerns have been raised that primary studies of diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools may exaggerate estimates of accuracy and that this could also influence the results of meta-analyses. No studies, however, have evaluated the quality of meta-analyses of depressionscreeningtools. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression (...) screening tools.We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1, 2005 through March 13, 2016 for recent meta-analyses in any language on the diagnostic accuracy of depressionscreeningtools. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool with appropriate adaptations made for studies of diagnostic test accuracy.We identified 21 eligible meta-analyses. The majority provided a list of included studies (100%), included a comprehensive literature search (95%) and assessed
Screeningtools for evaluation of depression in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A systematic review. Background: Anxiety and depression are common comorbid disorders in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), though estimates of their prevalence vary considerably. Depressive symptoms/depression are important comorbidities in COPD and an increasing interest is shown to these disorders. Depression may lead to reduced quality of life and increased morbidity (...) and mortality. These statements underline the importance of implementing the use of screening instruments for depressive symptoms in a clinical setting. This systematic review evaluates four commonly used screeningtools for depression in COPD. Furthermore we assess the prevalence of depression in COPD in the evaluated studies. Design: A literature search identified studies dealing with screening for depression in patients with COPD. We focused on the instruments: Beck Depression Inventory, Geriatric
Selective Cutoff Reporting in Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Comparison of Conventional and Individual-Patient-Data Meta-Analyses of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 DepressionScreeningTool. In studies of diagnostic test accuracy, authors sometimes report results only for a range of cutoff points around data-driven "optimal" cutoffs. We assessed selective cutoff reporting in studies of the diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depressionscreeningtool
Risk of Bias from Inclusion of Currently Diagnosed or Treated Patients in Studies of DepressionScreeningTool Accuracy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Recently Published Primary Studies and Meta-Analyses. Depressionscreening can improve upon usual care only if screeningtools accurately identify depressed patients who would not otherwise be recognized by healthcare providers. Inclusion of patients already being treated for depression in studies of screeningtool accuracy would inflate (...) estimates of screening accuracy and yield. The present study investigated (1) the proportion of primary studies of depressionscreeningtool accuracy that were recently published in journals listed in MEDLINE, which appropriately excluded currently diagnosed or treated patients; and (2) whether recently published meta-analyses identified the inclusion of currently diagnosed or treated patients as a potential source of bias.MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2013 through March 27, 2015 for primary
Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depressionscreeningtool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Concerns have been raised regarding the quality and completeness of abstract reporting in evidence reviews, but this had not been evaluated in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Our objective was to evaluate reporting quality and completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of depressionscreeningtool accuracy, using the Preferred (...) Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts tool.Cross-sectional study.We searched MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1 January 2005 through 13 March 2016 for recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses in any language that compared a depressionscreeningtool to a diagnosis based on clinical or validated diagnostic interview.Two reviewers independently assessed quality and completeness of abstract reporting using the PRISMA for Abstracts tool with appropriate adaptations
Accuracy of DepressionScreeningTools to Detect Major Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Depressionscreening among children and adolescents is controversial, and no clinical trials have evaluated benefits and harms of screening programs. A requirement for effective screening is a screeningtool with demonstrated high accuracy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of depressionscreening instruments to detect major depressive disorder (...) (MDD) in children and adolescents.Data sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HaPI, and LILACS databases from 2006 to September 30, 2015. Eligible studies compared a depressionscreeningtool to a validated diagnostic interview for MDD and reported accuracy data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2.We identified 17 studies with data on 20 depressionscreeningtools. Few studies examined the accuracy of the same
Performance of screeningtools in detecting major depressive disorder among patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Eligible studies published before 31 Dec 2013 were identified from the following databases: Ovid Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science.Eligible studies published before 31, Dec 2013 were identified from the following databases: Ovid Medline, EMBASE, psycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web (...) of Science.Eight studies aiming to identify MDD in CHD patients were included, and there were 10 self-reporting questionnaires (such as PHQ-2, PHQ-9, PHQ categorical algorithm, HADS-D, BDI, BDI-II, BDI-II-cog, CES-D, SCL-90, 2 simple yes/no items) and 1 observer rating scale (Ham-D). For MDD alone, the sensitivity and specificity of various screeningtools at the validity and optimal cut-off point varied from 0.34 [0.19, 0.52] to 0.96 [0.78, 1.00] and 0.69 [0.65, 0.73] to 0.97 [0.93, 0.99]. Results showed PHQ
Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group. To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard.We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized (...) rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison.Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n=10,009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-II all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had
Screeningtools used for measuring depression among people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review Depression is common in patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of patients and is associated with poor outcomes and higher mortality rates. Several guidelines encourage screening of patients with diabetes for depression. It is unclear which depressionscreeningtools are currently being used in people with diabetes and which (...) are most appropriate.A systematic review was conducted to examine which depressionscreening instruments are currently being used in diabetes research, and the operating characteristics of these tools in diabetes populations. Literature searches for the period January 1970 to October 2010 were conducted using MEDLINE, PSYCH-INFO, ASSIA, SCOPUS, ACADEMIC SEARCH COMPLETE, CINAHL and SCIENCE DIRECT.Data are presented for the 234 published studies that were examined. The Beck Depression Inventory
Accuracy of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as a screeningtool in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is the most extensively validated scale for screening emotional distress in cancer patients. However, thresholds for clinical decision making vary widely across studies. A meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of identifying optimal, empirically derived cut-offs.PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were (...) searched for studies that compared the HADS total and its subscale scores against a semi-structured or structured clinical interview as a reference standard with regard to its screening efficacy for any mental disorders and depressive disorders alone. Separate pooled analyses were conducted for single or two adjacent thresholds. A total of 28 studies (inter-rater agreement, κ = 0.86) were included.The best thresholds for screening for mental disorders were 10 or 11 on the HADS total (sensitivity 0.80
Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screeningtools for depression: systematic review. To investigate the proportion of original studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of screeningtools for depression that appropriately exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression and to determine whether (...) a diagnosis of or were receiving treatment for depression. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses commented on possible bias from the inclusion of such patients, even though 10 reviews used quality assessment tools with items to rate risk of bias from composition of the sample of patients.Studies of the accuracy of screeningtools for depression rarely exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression, a potential bias that is not evaluated in systematic reviews