Search

Your search keyword '"Tadinac, M"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Tadinac, M" Publisher wiley
3 results on '"Tadinac, M"'

1. Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis

Author

Neupane, D., Levis, B., Bhandari, P.M., Thombs, B.D., Benedetti, A., Sun, Y., He, C., Wu, Y., Krishnan, A., Negeri, Z., Imran, M., Rice, D.B., Riehm, K.E., Saadat, N., Azar, M., Sanchez, T.A., Chiovitti, M.J., Levis, A.W., Boruff, J.T., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Kloda, L.A., Patten, S.B., Shrier, I., Ziegelstein, R.C., Comeau, L., Mitchell, N.D., Tonelli, M., Vigod, S.N., Akena, D.H., Alvarado, R., Arroll, B., Bakare, M.O., Baradaran, H.R., Beck, C.T., Bombardier, C.H., Bunevicius, A., Carter, G., Chagas, M.H., Chaudron, L.H., Cholera, R., Clover, K., Conwell, Y., Castro e Couto, T., de Man-van Ginkel, J.M., Delgadillo, J., Fann, J.R., Favez, N., Fung, D., Garcia-Esteve, L., Gelaye, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Hyphantis, T., Inagaki, M., Ismail, K., Jetté, N., Khalifa, D.S., Khamseh, M.E., Kohlhoff, J., Kozinszky, Z., Kusminskas, L., Liu, S.-I., Lotrakul, M., Loureiro, S.R., Löwe, B., Sidik, S.M., Nakić Radoš, S., Osório, F.L., Pawlby, S.J., Pence, B.W., Rochat, T.J., Rooney, A.G., Sharp, D.J., Stafford, L., Su, K.-P., Sung, S.C., Tadinac, M., Darius Tandon, S., Thiagayson, P., Töreki, A., Torres-Giménez, A., Turner, A., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M., Vega Dienstmaier, Johann Martín, Vöhringer, P.A., White, J., Whooley, M.A., Winkley, K., Yamada, M., DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration, Clinical Psychology, World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center, APH - Global Health, and APH - Mental Health

Subjects
Astrophysics::High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena, Bivariate analysis, Patient Health Questionnaire, Sensitivity and Specificity, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, male, diagnostic test accuracy, individual participant data meta‐analysis, meta‐analysis, publication bias, selective cutoff reporting, Bias, Statistics, Humans, Cutoff, Medicine, controlled study, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, diagnostic test accuracy study, human, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Depressive Disorder, Major, business.industry, adult, Individual participant data, article, Original Articles, Publication bias, Random effects model, individual participant data meta-analysis, 030227 psychiatry, meta-analysis, Psychiatry and Mental health, female, Meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, Original Article, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery, meta analysis, Patient Health Questionnaire 9
Abstract

Objectives\ud \ud Selectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud For the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.

Published
2021

2. Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis

Author

Neupane, D, Levis, B, Bhandari, PM, Thombs, BD, Benedetti, A, Sun, Y, He, C, Wu, Y, Krishnan, A, Negeri, Z, Imran, M, Rice, DB, Riehm, KE, Saadat, N, Azar, M, Sanchez, TA, Chiovitti, MJ, Levis, AW, Boruff, JT, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, Ioannidis, JPA, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Comeau, L, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Vigod, SN, Akena, DH, Alvarado, R, Arroll, B, Bakare, MO, Baradaran, HR, Beck, CT, Bombardier, CH, Bunevicius, A, Carter, G, Chagas, MH, Chaudron, LH, Cholera, R, Clover, K, Conwell, Y, Castro e Couto, T, de Man-van Ginkel, JM, Delgadillo, J, Fann, JR, Favez, N, Fung, D, Garcia-Esteve, L, Gelaye, B, Goodyear-Smith, F, Hyphantis, T, Inagaki, M, Ismail, K, Jetté, N, Khalifa, DS, Khamseh, ME, Kohlhoff, J, Kozinszky, Z, Kusminskas, L, Liu, SI, Lotrakul, M, Loureiro, SR, Löwe, B, Sidik, SM, Nakić Radoš, S, Osório, FL, Pawlby, SJ, Pence, BW, Rochat, TJ, Rooney, AG, Sharp, DJ, Stafford, L, Su, KP, Sung, SC, Tadinac, M, Darius Tandon, S, Thiagayson, P, Töreki, A, Torres-Giménez, A, Turner, Alyna, van der Feltz-Cornelis, CM, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Vöhringer, PA, White, J, Whooley, MA, Winkley, K, Yamada, M, Neupane, D, Levis, B, Bhandari, PM, Thombs, BD, Benedetti, A, Sun, Y, He, C, Wu, Y, Krishnan, A, Negeri, Z, Imran, M, Rice, DB, Riehm, KE, Saadat, N, Azar, M, Sanchez, TA, Chiovitti, MJ, Levis, AW, Boruff, JT, Cuijpers, P, Gilbody, S, Ioannidis, JPA, Kloda, LA, Patten, SB, Shrier, I, Ziegelstein, RC, Comeau, L, Mitchell, ND, Tonelli, M, Vigod, SN, Akena, DH, Alvarado, R, Arroll, B, Bakare, MO, Baradaran, HR, Beck, CT, Bombardier, CH, Bunevicius, A, Carter, G, Chagas, MH, Chaudron, LH, Cholera, R, Clover, K, Conwell, Y, Castro e Couto, T, de Man-van Ginkel, JM, Delgadillo, J, Fann, JR, Favez, N, Fung, D, Garcia-Esteve, L, Gelaye, B, Goodyear-Smith, F, Hyphantis, T, Inagaki, M, Ismail, K, Jetté, N, Khalifa, DS, Khamseh, ME, Kohlhoff, J, Kozinszky, Z, Kusminskas, L, Liu, SI, Lotrakul, M, Loureiro, SR, Löwe, B, Sidik, SM, Nakić Radoš, S, Osório, FL, Pawlby, SJ, Pence, BW, Rochat, TJ, Rooney, AG, Sharp, DJ, Stafford, L, Su, KP, Sung, SC, Tadinac, M, Darius Tandon, S, Thiagayson, P, Töreki, A, Torres-Giménez, A, Turner, Alyna, van der Feltz-Cornelis, CM, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Vöhringer, PA, White, J, Whooley, MA, Winkley, K, and Yamada, M

Abstract

Objectives: Selectively reported results from only well-performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta-analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs. Methods: We conducted bivariate random effects meta-analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs. Results: For the PHQ-9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ-9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10. Conclusion: Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ-9 than EPDS.

Published
2021

3. 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, Tatano Beck, C, Bindt, C, Boyce, PM, Bunevicius, A, Castro e Couto, T, 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, Rados, SN, Navarro Garcia, P, Nishi, D, E-Andjafono, DOL, Robertson-Blackmore, E, Rochat, TJ, Rowe, HJ, Siu, BWM, Skalkidou, A, Stein, A, Stewart, RC, Su, K-P, Sundstroem-Poromaa, I, Tadinac, M, Tandon, SD, Tendais, I, Thiagayson, P, Toereki, A, Torres-Gimenez, A, Tran, TD, Trevillion, K, Turner, K, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Wynter, K, Yonkers, KA, Benedetti, A, Thombs, BD, 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, Tatano Beck, C, Bindt, C, Boyce, PM, Bunevicius, A, Castro e Couto, T, 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, Rados, SN, Navarro Garcia, P, Nishi, D, E-Andjafono, DOL, Robertson-Blackmore, E, Rochat, TJ, Rowe, HJ, Siu, BWM, Skalkidou, A, Stein, A, Stewart, RC, Su, K-P, Sundstroem-Poromaa, I, Tadinac, M, Tandon, SD, Tendais, I, Thiagayson, P, Toereki, A, Torres-Gimenez, A, Tran, TD, Trevillion, K, Turner, K, Vega-Dienstmaier, JM, Wynter, K, Yonkers, KA, Benedetti, A, and Thombs, BD

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.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results