Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Authors :
Wu Y
Levis B
Daray FM
Ioannidis JPA
Patten SB
Cuijpers P
Ziegelstein RC
Gilbody S
Fischer FH
Fan S
Sun Y
He C
Krishnan A
Neupane D
Bhandari PM
Negeri Z
Riehm KE
Rice DB
Azar M
Yan XW
Imran M
Chiovitti MJ
Boruff JT
McMillan D
Kloda LA
Markham S
Henry M
Ismail Z
Loiselle CG
Mitchell ND
Al-Adawi S
Beck KR
Beraldi A
Bernstein CN
Boye B
Büel-Drabe N
Bunevicius A
Can C
Carter G
Chen CK
Cheung G
Clover K
Conroy RM
Costa-Requena G
Cukor D
Dabscheck E
De Souza J
Downing M
Feinstein A
Ferentinos PP
Flint AJ
Gallagher P
Gandy M
Grassi L
Härter M
Hernando A
Jackson ML
Jenewein J
Jetté N
Julião M
Kjærgaard M
Köhler S
König HH
Krishna LKR
Lee Y
Löbner M
Loosman WL
Love AW
Löwe B
Malt UF
Marrie RA
Massardo L
Matsuoka Y
Mehnert A
Michopoulos I
Misery L
Nelson CJ
Ng CG
O'Donnell ML
O'Rourke SJ
Öztürk A
Pabst A
Pasco JA
Peceliuniene J
Pintor L
Ponsford JL
Pulido F
Quinn TJ
Reme SE
Reuter K
Riedel-Heller SG
Rooney AG
Sánchez-González R
Saracino RM
Schellekens MPJ
Scherer M
Benedetti A
Thombs BD
Et Al
Source :
Psychological assessment [Psychol Assess] 2023 Feb; Vol. 35 (2), pp. 95-114.
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1939-134X
Volume :
35
Issue :
2
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Psychological assessment
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
36689386
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001181