Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Anita Lyubenova; Dipika Neupane; Brooke Levis; Yin Wu; Ying Sun; Chen He; Ankur Krishnan; Parash M. Bhandari; Zelalem Negeri; Mahrukh Imran; Danielle B. Rice; Marleine Azar; Matthew J. Chiovitti; Nazanin Saadat; Kira E. Riehm; Jill T. Boruff; John P.A. Ioannidis; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; Lorie A. Kloda; Scott B. Patten; Ian Shrier; Roy C. Ziegelstein; Liane Comeau; Nicholas D. Mitchell; Marcello Tonelli; Simone N. Vigod; Franca Aceti; Jacqueline Barnes; Amar D. Bavle; Cheryl T. Beck; Carola Bindt; Philip M. Boyce; Adomas Bunevicius; Linda H. Chaudron; Nicolas Favez; Barbara Figueiredo; Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve; Lisa Giardinelli; Nadine Helle; Louise M. Howard; Jane Kohlhoff; Laima Kusminskas; Zoltán Kozinszky; Lorenzo Lelli; Angeliki A. Leonardou; Valentina Meuti; Sandra N. Radoš; Purificación N. García; Susan J. Pawlby; Chantal Quispel; Emma Robertson-Blackmore; Tamsen J. Rochat; Deborah J. Sharp; Bonnie W.M. Siu; Alan Stein; Robert C. Stewart; Meri Tadinac; S. Darius Tandon; Iva Tendais; Annamária Töreki; Anna Torres-Giménez; Thach D. Tran; Kylee Trevillion; Katherine Turner; Johann M. Vega-Dienstmaier; Andrea Benedetti; Brett D. Thombs

doi:10.1002/mpr.1860

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Anita Lyubenova
, Dipika Neupane
, Brooke Levis
, Yin Wu
, Ying Sun
, Chen He
, Ankur Krishnan
, Parash M. Bhandari
, Zelalem Negeri
, Mahrukh Imran
, Danielle B. Rice
, Marleine Azar
, Matthew J. Chiovitti
, Nazanin Saadat
, Kira E. Riehm
, Jill T. Boruff
, John P.A. Ioannidis
, Pim Cuijpers
, Simon Gilbody
, Lorie A. Kloda

Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Liane Comeau, Nicholas D. Mitchell, Marcello Tonelli, Simone N. Vigod, Franca Aceti, Jacqueline Barnes, Amar D. Bavle, Cheryl T. Beck, Carola Bindt, Philip M. Boyce, Adomas Bunevicius, Linda H. Chaudron, Nicolas Favez, Barbara Figueiredo, Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve, Lisa Giardinelli, Nadine Helle, Louise M. Howard, Jane Kohlhoff, Laima Kusminskas, Zoltán Kozinszky, Lorenzo Lelli, Angeliki A. Leonardou, Valentina Meuti, Sandra N. Radoš, Purificación N. García, Susan J. Pawlby, Chantal Quispel, Emma Robertson-Blackmore, Tamsen J. Rochat, Deborah J. Sharp, Bonnie W.M. Siu, Alan Stein, Robert C. Stewart, Meri Tadinac, S. Darius Tandon, Iva Tendais, Annamária Töreki, Anna Torres-Giménez, Thach D. Tran, Kylee Trevillion, Katherine Turner, Johann M. Vega-Dienstmaier, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs

Jewish General Hospital
McGill University
Keele University
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford University
University of Amsterdam
University of York
Concordia University
University of Calgary
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Universite de Montreal
University of Alberta
Alberta Health Services
University of Calgary
University of Toronto
Sapienza University of Rome
Birkbeck, University of London
Rajarajeswari Medical College and Hospital
School of Nursing
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
University of Sydney
Westmead Hospital
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
University of Geneva
University of Lausanne
University of Minho
Hospital Clinic
Psychopathology and Gender Research Group
Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi Sunyer (IDIBAPS)
University of Florence
King’s College London
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
University of New South Wales
Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research
Karitane
Private Practice
Danderyd Hospital
Athens University Medical School
Catholic University of Croatia
Psychology Service
Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis
Halifax Health
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa
Bristol Medical School
Castle Peak Hospital Hong Kong
University of Oxford
University of Edinburgh
Malawi Epidemiology and Intervention Research Unit
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
MTA-SZTE “Lendület” Mycobiome Research Group
Monash University
San Paolo Hospital
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Facultad de Medicina Alberto Hurtado
McGill University Health Centre

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: −13.7%, 12.3%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.

Original language	English
Article number	e1860
Journal	International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Volume	30
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860
State	Published - Mar 2021
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
depression prevalence
individual participant data meta-analysis
major depression
structured clinical interview for DSM

Access to Document

10.1002/mpr.1860

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Lyubenova, A., Neupane, D., Levis, B., Wu, Y., Sun, Y., He, C., Krishnan, A., Bhandari, P. M., Negeri, Z., Imran, M., Rice, D. B., Azar, M., Chiovitti, M. J., Saadat, N., Riehm, K. E., Boruff, J. T., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., ... Thombs, B. D. (2021). Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 30(1), Article e1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

@article{104e6a1d2a90460dacfb31e0357aedce,

title = "Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis",

abstract = "Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8\% (95\% CI: 22.0\%–34.5\%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0\% (95\% CI: 6.8\%–11.9\%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0\% (95\% CI: 6.5\%–12.3\%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1\% (95\% prediction interval: −13.7\%, 12.3\%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.",

keywords = "Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, depression prevalence, individual participant data meta-analysis, major depression, structured clinical interview for DSM",

author = "Anita Lyubenova and Dipika Neupane and Brooke Levis and Yin Wu and Ying Sun and Chen He and Ankur Krishnan and Bhandari, \{Parash M.\} and Zelalem Negeri and Mahrukh Imran and Rice, \{Danielle B.\} and Marleine Azar and Chiovitti, \{Matthew J.\} and Nazanin Saadat and Riehm, \{Kira E.\} and Boruff, \{Jill T.\} and Ioannidis, \{John P.A.\} and Pim Cuijpers and Simon Gilbody and Kloda, \{Lorie A.\} and Patten, \{Scott B.\} and Ian Shrier and Ziegelstein, \{Roy C.\} and Liane Comeau and Mitchell, \{Nicholas D.\} and Marcello Tonelli and Vigod, \{Simone N.\} and Franca Aceti and Jacqueline Barnes and Bavle, \{Amar D.\} and Beck, \{Cheryl T.\} and Carola Bindt and Boyce, \{Philip M.\} and Adomas Bunevicius and Chaudron, \{Linda H.\} and Nicolas Favez and Barbara Figueiredo and Llu{\"i}sa Garcia-Esteve and Lisa Giardinelli and Nadine Helle and Howard, \{Louise M.\} and Jane Kohlhoff and Laima Kusminskas and Zolt{\'a}n Kozinszky and Lorenzo Lelli and Leonardou, \{Angeliki A.\} and Valentina Meuti and Rado{\v s}, \{Sandra N.\} and Garc{\'i}a, \{Purificaci{\'o}n N.\} and Pawlby, \{Susan J.\} and Chantal Quispel and Emma Robertson-Blackmore and Rochat, \{Tamsen J.\} and Sharp, \{Deborah J.\} and Siu, \{Bonnie W.M.\} and Alan Stein and Stewart, \{Robert C.\} and Meri Tadinac and Tandon, \{S. Darius\} and Iva Tendais and Annam{\'a}ria T{\"o}reki and Anna Torres-Gim{\'e}nez and Tran, \{Thach D.\} and Kylee Trevillion and Katherine Turner and Vega-Dienstmaier, \{Johann M.\} and Andrea Benedetti and Thombs, \{Brett D.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley \& Sons Ltd.",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1002/mpr.1860",

language = "Ingl{\'e}s",

volume = "30",

journal = "International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research",

issn = "1049-8931",

number = "1",

}

Lyubenova, A, Neupane, D, Levis, B, Wu, Y, Sun, Y, He, C, Krishnan, A, Bhandari, PM, Negeri, Z, Imran, M, Rice, DB, Azar, M, Chiovitti, MJ, Saadat, N, Riehm, KE, Boruff, JT, Ioannidis, JPA, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Comeau, L, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Vigod, SN, Aceti, F, Barnes, J, Bavle, AD, Beck, CT, Bindt, C, Boyce, PM, Bunevicius, A, Chaudron, LH, Favez, N, Figueiredo, B, Garcia-Esteve, L, Giardinelli, L, Helle, N, Howard, LM, Kohlhoff, J, Kusminskas, L, Kozinszky, Z, Lelli, L, Leonardou, AA, Meuti, V, Radoš, SN, García, PN, Pawlby, SJ, Quispel, C, Robertson-Blackmore, E, Rochat, TJ, Sharp, DJ, Siu, BWM, Stein, A, Stewart, RC, Tadinac, M, Tandon, SD, Tendais, I, Töreki, A, Torres-Giménez, A, Tran, TD, Trevillion, K, Turner, K, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Benedetti, A & Thombs, BD 2021, 'Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis', International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, vol. 30, no. 1, e1860. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. / Lyubenova, Anita; Neupane, Dipika; Levis, Brooke et al.
In: International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, e1860, 03.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification

T2 - Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

AU - Lyubenova, Anita

AU - Neupane, Dipika

AU - Levis, Brooke

AU - Wu, Yin

AU - Sun, Ying

AU - He, Chen

AU - Krishnan, Ankur

AU - Bhandari, Parash M.

AU - Negeri, Zelalem

AU - Imran, Mahrukh

AU - Rice, Danielle B.

AU - Azar, Marleine

AU - Chiovitti, Matthew J.

AU - Saadat, Nazanin

AU - Riehm, Kira E.

AU - Boruff, Jill T.

AU - Ioannidis, John P.A.

AU - Cuijpers, Pim

AU - Gilbody, Simon

AU - Kloda, Lorie A.

AU - Patten, Scott B.

AU - Shrier, Ian

AU - Ziegelstein, Roy C.

AU - Comeau, Liane

AU - Mitchell, Nicholas D.

AU - Tonelli, Marcello

AU - Vigod, Simone N.

AU - Aceti, Franca

AU - Barnes, Jacqueline

AU - Bavle, Amar D.

AU - Beck, Cheryl T.

AU - Bindt, Carola

AU - Boyce, Philip M.

AU - Bunevicius, Adomas

AU - Chaudron, Linda H.

AU - Favez, Nicolas

AU - Figueiredo, Barbara

AU - Garcia-Esteve, Lluïsa

AU - Giardinelli, Lisa

AU - Helle, Nadine

AU - Howard, Louise M.

AU - Kohlhoff, Jane

AU - Kusminskas, Laima

AU - Kozinszky, Zoltán

AU - Lelli, Lorenzo

AU - Leonardou, Angeliki A.

AU - Meuti, Valentina

AU - Radoš, Sandra N.

AU - García, Purificación N.

AU - Pawlby, Susan J.

AU - Quispel, Chantal

AU - Robertson-Blackmore, Emma

AU - Rochat, Tamsen J.

AU - Sharp, Deborah J.

AU - Siu, Bonnie W.M.

AU - Stein, Alan

AU - Stewart, Robert C.

AU - Tadinac, Meri

AU - Tandon, S. Darius

AU - Tendais, Iva

AU - Töreki, Annamária

AU - Torres-Giménez, Anna

AU - Tran, Thach D.

AU - Trevillion, Kylee

AU - Turner, Katherine

AU - Vega-Dienstmaier, Johann M.

AU - Benedetti, Andrea

AU - Thombs, Brett D.

PY - 2021/3

Y1 - 2021/3

N2 - Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: −13.7%, 12.3%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.

AB - Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: −13.7%, 12.3%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.

KW - Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale

KW - depression prevalence

KW - individual participant data meta-analysis

KW - major depression

KW - structured clinical interview for DSM

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85093513174

U2 - 10.1002/mpr.1860

DO - 10.1002/mpr.1860

M3 - Artículo

C2 - 33089942

AN - SCOPUS:85093513174

SN - 1049-8931

VL - 30

JO - International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

JF - International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

IS - 1

M1 - e1860

ER -

Lyubenova A, Neupane D, Levis B, Wu Y, Sun Y, He C et al. Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2021 Mar;30(1):e1860. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1860

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this