Search

Your search keyword '"Meuti V"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Meuti V" Publisher john wiley & sons
2 results on '"Meuti V"'

1. 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.

Author

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, and Thombs BD

Subjects
Depression, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Prevalence, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Depression, Postpartum, Depressive Disorder, Major diagnosis, Depressive Disorder, Major epidemiology
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., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Author

Levis B, McMillan D, Sun Y, He C, Rice DB, Krishnan A, Wu Y, Azar M, Sanchez TA, Chiovitti MJ, Bhandari PM, Neupane D, Saadat N, Riehm KE, Imran M, Boruff JT, Cuijpers P, Gilbody S, Ioannidis JPA, Kloda LA, Patten SB, Shrier I, Ziegelstein RC, Comeau L, Mitchell ND, Tonelli M, Vigod SN, Aceti F, Alvarado R, Alvarado-Esquivel C, Bakare MO, Barnes J, Beck CT, Bindt C, Boyce PM, Bunevicius A, Couto TCE, Chaudron LH, Correa H, de Figueiredo FP, Eapen V, Fernandes M, Figueiredo B, Fisher JRW, Garcia-Esteve L, Giardinelli L, Helle N, Howard LM, Khalifa DS, Kohlhoff J, Kusminskas L, Kozinszky Z, Lelli L, Leonardou AA, Lewis BA, Maes M, Meuti V, Nakić Radoš S, Navarro García P, Nishi D, Okitundu Luwa E-Andjafono D, Robertson-Blackmore E, Rochat TJ, Rowe HJ, Siu BWM, Skalkidou A, Stein A, Stewart RC, Su KP, Sundström-Poromaa I, Tadinac M, Tandon SD, Tendais I, Thiagayson P, Töreki A, Torres-Giménez A, Tran TD, Trevillion K, Turner K, Vega-Dienstmaier JM, Wynter K, Yonkers KA, Benedetti A, and Thombs BD

Subjects
Adult, Depression, Postpartum diagnosis, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Depressive Disorder, Major diagnosis, Interview, Psychological standards, Pregnancy Complications diagnosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales standards
Abstract

Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum., Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics., Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased., Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results