Author:
Zhou Jieru,Radojčić Maja R.,Ashton-James Claire E.,Yang Hanqiao,Chen Ziyi,Wang Ruijia,Yang Ying,Si Jinhua,Yao Liang,Li Ge,Chen Lingxiao
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Studies have reported an increase in the prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. The accuracy of screening tools may change with the prevalence and distribution of a disease in a population or sample: the “Spectrum Effect”.
Methods
First, we selected commonly used screening tools and developed search strategies for the inclusion of original studies during the pandemic. Second, we searched PsycINFO, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from March 2020 to September 2022 to obtain original studies that investigated the accuracy of depression screening tools during the pandemic. We then searched these databases to identify meta-analyses summarizing the accuracy of these tools conducted before the pandemic and compared the optimal cut-offs for depression screening tools during the pandemic with those before.
Result
Four original studies evaluating the optimal cut-offs for four screening tools (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI-II], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression [HADS-D], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 [GDS-4]) were published during the pandemic. Four meta-analyses summarizing these tools before the pandemic. We found that the optimal cut-off of BDI-II was 14 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with Type 2 diabetes) and 14.5 before the pandemic (17.6% depression prevalence, screening psychiatric, primary care, and healthy populations); HADS-D was 10 during the pandemic (23.8% depression prevalence, screening patients with type 2 diabetes) and 7 before the pandemic (15.0% depression prevalence, screening medically ill patients); PHQ-9 was 11 during the pandemic (14.5% depression prevalence, screening university students) and 8 before the pandemic (10.9% depression prevalence, screening the unrestricted population), and GDS-4 was 1.8 during the pandemic (29.0% depression prevalence, screening adults seen in a memory clinic setting) and 3 before the pandemic (18.5% depression prevalence, screening older adults).
Conclusion
The optimal cut-off for different screening tools may be sensitive to changes in study populations and reference standards. And potential spectrum effects that should be considered in post-COVID time which aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference50 articles.
1. Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, et al. Screening for depression in adults: US preventive services task Force recommendation statement. Jama. 2016;315(4):380–7.
2. Force USPST, Mangione CM, Barry MJ, et al. Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US preventive services task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2022;328(15):1534–42.
3. Pignone MP, Gaynes BN, Rushton JL, et al. Screening for depression in adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(10):765–76.
4. McCarron RM, Shapiro B, Rawles J, Luo J. Depression. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(5):ITC65–80.
5. Depression in children and young people: identification and management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Copyright © NICE 2019; 2019.