TY - JOUR
T1 - Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews
T2 - A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses
AU - DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration
AU - Wu, Yin
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Ioannidis, John P.A.
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Thombs, Brett D.
AU - Sun, Ying
AU - He, Chen
AU - Krishnan, Ankur
AU - Bhandari, Parash Mani
AU - Neupane, Dipika
AU - Negeri, Zelalem
AU - Imran, Mahrukh
AU - Rice, Danielle B.
AU - Riehm, Kira E.
AU - Saadat, Nazanin
AU - Azar, Marleine
AU - Levis, Alexander W.
AU - Sanchez, Tatiana A.
AU - Chiovitti, Matthew J.
AU - Yan, Xin Wei
AU - Boruff, Jill
AU - Kloda, Lorie A.
AU - Cuijpers, Pim
AU - Gilbody, Simon
AU - McMillan, Dean
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 - Henry, Melissa
AU - Ismail, Zahinoor
AU - Loiselle, Carmen G.
AU - Akena, Dickens H.
AU - Al-Adawi, Samir
AU - Alamri, Sultan H.
AU - Alvarado, Rubén
AU - Alvarado-Esquivel, Cosme
AU - Amtmann, Dagmar
AU - Arroll, Bruce
AU - Ayalon, Liat
AU - Bakare, Muideen O.
AU - Baradaran, Hamid R.
AU - Barnes, Jacqueline
AU - Bavle, Amar D.
AU - Beck, Cheryl Tatano
AU - Beraldi, Anna
AU - Vega-Dienstmaier, Johann M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
AB - Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85095432734
U2 - 10.1159/000509283
DO - 10.1159/000509283
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 32814337
AN - SCOPUS:85095432734
SN - 0033-3190
VL - 90
SP - 28
EP - 40
JO - Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
JF - Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
IS - 1
ER -