7项HADS抑郁分量表和14项HADS总分量表筛查重度抑郁症的准确性比较:系统综述和个体参与者数据荟萃分析

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1037/pas0001181
Yin Wu, Brooke Levis, Federico M Daray, John P A Ioannidis, Scott B Patten, Pim Cuijpers, Roy C Ziegelstein, Simon Gilbody, Felix H Fischer, Suiqiong Fan, Ying Sun, Chen He, Ankur Krishnan, Dipika Neupane, Parash Mani Bhandari, Zelalem Negeri, Kira E Riehm, Danielle B Rice, Marleine Azar, Xin Wei Yan, Mahrukh Imran, Matthew J Chiovitti, Jill T Boruff, Dean McMillan, Lorie A Kloda, Sarah Markham, Melissa Henry, Zahinoor Ismail, Carmen G Loiselle, Nicholas D Mitchell, Samir Al-Adawi, Kevin R Beck, Anna Beraldi, Charles N Bernstein, Birgitte Boye, Natalie Büel-Drabe, Adomas Bunevicius, Ceyhun Can, Gregory Carter, Chih-Ken Chen, Gary Cheung, Kerrie Clover, Ronán M Conroy, Gema Costa-Requena, Daniel Cukor, Eli Dabscheck, Jennifer De Souza, Marina Downing, Anthony Feinstein, Panagiotis P Ferentinos, Alastair J Flint, Pamela Gallagher, Milena Gandy, Luigi Grassi, Martin Härter, Asuncion Hernando, Melinda L Jackson, Josef Jenewein, Nathalie Jetté, Miguel Julião, Marie Kjærgaard, Sebastian Köhler, Hans-Helmut König, Lalit K R Krishna, Yu Lee, Margrit Löbner, Wim L Loosman, Anthony W Love, Bernd Löwe, Ulrik F Malt, Ruth Ann Marrie, Loreto Massardo, Yutaka Matsuoka, Anja Mehnert, Ioannis Michopoulos, Laurent Misery, Christian J Nelson, Chong Guan Ng, Meaghan L O'Donnell, Suzanne J O'Rourke, Ahmet Öztürk, Alexander Pabst, Julie A Pasco, Jurate Peceliuniene, Luis Pintor, Jennie L Ponsford, Federico Pulido, Terence J Quinn, Silje E Reme, Katrin Reuter, Steffi G Riedel-Heller, Alasdair G Rooney, Roberto Sánchez-González, Rebecca M Saracino, Melanie P J Schellekens, Martin Scherer, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D Thombs, Et Al
{"title":"7项HADS抑郁分量表和14项HADS总分量表筛查重度抑郁症的准确性比较:系统综述和个体参与者数据荟萃分析","authors":"Yin Wu,&nbsp;Brooke Levis,&nbsp;Federico M Daray,&nbsp;John P A Ioannidis,&nbsp;Scott B Patten,&nbsp;Pim Cuijpers,&nbsp;Roy C Ziegelstein,&nbsp;Simon Gilbody,&nbsp;Felix H Fischer,&nbsp;Suiqiong Fan,&nbsp;Ying Sun,&nbsp;Chen He,&nbsp;Ankur Krishnan,&nbsp;Dipika Neupane,&nbsp;Parash Mani Bhandari,&nbsp;Zelalem Negeri,&nbsp;Kira E Riehm,&nbsp;Danielle B Rice,&nbsp;Marleine Azar,&nbsp;Xin Wei Yan,&nbsp;Mahrukh Imran,&nbsp;Matthew J Chiovitti,&nbsp;Jill T Boruff,&nbsp;Dean McMillan,&nbsp;Lorie A Kloda,&nbsp;Sarah Markham,&nbsp;Melissa Henry,&nbsp;Zahinoor Ismail,&nbsp;Carmen G Loiselle,&nbsp;Nicholas D Mitchell,&nbsp;Samir Al-Adawi,&nbsp;Kevin R Beck,&nbsp;Anna Beraldi,&nbsp;Charles N Bernstein,&nbsp;Birgitte Boye,&nbsp;Natalie Büel-Drabe,&nbsp;Adomas Bunevicius,&nbsp;Ceyhun Can,&nbsp;Gregory Carter,&nbsp;Chih-Ken Chen,&nbsp;Gary Cheung,&nbsp;Kerrie Clover,&nbsp;Ronán M Conroy,&nbsp;Gema Costa-Requena,&nbsp;Daniel Cukor,&nbsp;Eli Dabscheck,&nbsp;Jennifer De Souza,&nbsp;Marina Downing,&nbsp;Anthony Feinstein,&nbsp;Panagiotis P Ferentinos,&nbsp;Alastair J Flint,&nbsp;Pamela Gallagher,&nbsp;Milena Gandy,&nbsp;Luigi Grassi,&nbsp;Martin Härter,&nbsp;Asuncion Hernando,&nbsp;Melinda L Jackson,&nbsp;Josef Jenewein,&nbsp;Nathalie Jetté,&nbsp;Miguel Julião,&nbsp;Marie Kjærgaard,&nbsp;Sebastian Köhler,&nbsp;Hans-Helmut König,&nbsp;Lalit K R Krishna,&nbsp;Yu Lee,&nbsp;Margrit Löbner,&nbsp;Wim L Loosman,&nbsp;Anthony W Love,&nbsp;Bernd Löwe,&nbsp;Ulrik F Malt,&nbsp;Ruth Ann Marrie,&nbsp;Loreto Massardo,&nbsp;Yutaka Matsuoka,&nbsp;Anja Mehnert,&nbsp;Ioannis Michopoulos,&nbsp;Laurent Misery,&nbsp;Christian J Nelson,&nbsp;Chong Guan Ng,&nbsp;Meaghan L O'Donnell,&nbsp;Suzanne J O'Rourke,&nbsp;Ahmet Öztürk,&nbsp;Alexander Pabst,&nbsp;Julie A Pasco,&nbsp;Jurate Peceliuniene,&nbsp;Luis Pintor,&nbsp;Jennie L Ponsford,&nbsp;Federico Pulido,&nbsp;Terence J Quinn,&nbsp;Silje E Reme,&nbsp;Katrin Reuter,&nbsp;Steffi G Riedel-Heller,&nbsp;Alasdair G Rooney,&nbsp;Roberto Sánchez-González,&nbsp;Rebecca M Saracino,&nbsp;Melanie P J Schellekens,&nbsp;Martin Scherer,&nbsp;Andrea Benedetti,&nbsp;Brett D Thombs,&nbsp;Et Al","doi":"10.1037/pas0001181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"35 2","pages":"95-114"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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\":\"Yin Wu,&nbsp;Brooke Levis,&nbsp;Federico M Daray,&nbsp;John P A Ioannidis,&nbsp;Scott B Patten,&nbsp;Pim Cuijpers,&nbsp;Roy C Ziegelstein,&nbsp;Simon Gilbody,&nbsp;Felix H Fischer,&nbsp;Suiqiong Fan,&nbsp;Ying Sun,&nbsp;Chen He,&nbsp;Ankur Krishnan,&nbsp;Dipika Neupane,&nbsp;Parash Mani Bhandari,&nbsp;Zelalem Negeri,&nbsp;Kira E Riehm,&nbsp;Danielle B Rice,&nbsp;Marleine Azar,&nbsp;Xin Wei Yan,&nbsp;Mahrukh Imran,&nbsp;Matthew J Chiovitti,&nbsp;Jill T Boruff,&nbsp;Dean McMillan,&nbsp;Lorie A Kloda,&nbsp;Sarah Markham,&nbsp;Melissa Henry,&nbsp;Zahinoor Ismail,&nbsp;Carmen G Loiselle,&nbsp;Nicholas D Mitchell,&nbsp;Samir Al-Adawi,&nbsp;Kevin R Beck,&nbsp;Anna Beraldi,&nbsp;Charles N Bernstein,&nbsp;Birgitte Boye,&nbsp;Natalie Büel-Drabe,&nbsp;Adomas Bunevicius,&nbsp;Ceyhun Can,&nbsp;Gregory Carter,&nbsp;Chih-Ken Chen,&nbsp;Gary Cheung,&nbsp;Kerrie Clover,&nbsp;Ronán M Conroy,&nbsp;Gema Costa-Requena,&nbsp;Daniel Cukor,&nbsp;Eli Dabscheck,&nbsp;Jennifer De Souza,&nbsp;Marina Downing,&nbsp;Anthony Feinstein,&nbsp;Panagiotis P Ferentinos,&nbsp;Alastair J Flint,&nbsp;Pamela Gallagher,&nbsp;Milena Gandy,&nbsp;Luigi Grassi,&nbsp;Martin Härter,&nbsp;Asuncion Hernando,&nbsp;Melinda L Jackson,&nbsp;Josef Jenewein,&nbsp;Nathalie Jetté,&nbsp;Miguel Julião,&nbsp;Marie Kjærgaard,&nbsp;Sebastian Köhler,&nbsp;Hans-Helmut König,&nbsp;Lalit K R Krishna,&nbsp;Yu Lee,&nbsp;Margrit Löbner,&nbsp;Wim L Loosman,&nbsp;Anthony W Love,&nbsp;Bernd Löwe,&nbsp;Ulrik F Malt,&nbsp;Ruth Ann Marrie,&nbsp;Loreto Massardo,&nbsp;Yutaka Matsuoka,&nbsp;Anja Mehnert,&nbsp;Ioannis Michopoulos,&nbsp;Laurent Misery,&nbsp;Christian J Nelson,&nbsp;Chong Guan Ng,&nbsp;Meaghan L O'Donnell,&nbsp;Suzanne J O'Rourke,&nbsp;Ahmet Öztürk,&nbsp;Alexander Pabst,&nbsp;Julie A Pasco,&nbsp;Jurate Peceliuniene,&nbsp;Luis Pintor,&nbsp;Jennie L Ponsford,&nbsp;Federico Pulido,&nbsp;Terence J Quinn,&nbsp;Silje E Reme,&nbsp;Katrin Reuter,&nbsp;Steffi G Riedel-Heller,&nbsp;Alasdair G Rooney,&nbsp;Roberto Sánchez-González,&nbsp;Rebecca M Saracino,&nbsp;Melanie P J Schellekens,&nbsp;Martin Scherer,&nbsp;Andrea Benedetti,&nbsp;Brett D Thombs,&nbsp;Et Al\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"95-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001181\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

7项医院焦虑抑郁量表抑郁子量表(HADS- d)和14项HADS总分(HADS- t)均用于重度抑郁筛查。与HADS-D相比,HADS-T包括焦虑项目,需要更多的时间来完成。我们比较了HADS-D和HADS-T在重度抑郁症检测中的筛选准确性。我们进行了个体参与者数据荟萃分析,并拟合双变量随机效应模型,以评估HADS-D和HADS-T评分的参与者的诊断准确性。我们确定了最佳截止点,估计了95%置信区间的敏感性和特异性,并通过两阶段和个人水平模型比较了配对截止点的筛选准确性。我们使用0.05等效裕度来评估敏感性和特异性的等效性。包括来自98项研究的20,700名参与者(2,285名重度抑郁症患者)。HADS-D≥7(灵敏度0.79[0.75,0.83],特异性0.78[0.75,0.80])和HADS-T≥15(灵敏度0.79[0.76,0.82],特异性0.81[0.78,0.83])的截止值使受试者工作特征曲线左上角的距离最小。在所有评估的成对截断点组中,HADS-T和HADS-D之间的敏感性差异在-0.05至0.01之间(配对最佳截断点为0.00),特异性差异在0.03以内(0.02-0.03)。这种模式在门诊患者中也类似,尽管HADS-T在住院患者中略微(并非不相等)更具特异性。在检测重度抑郁症方面,HADS-T的准确性与HADS-D相当。在大多数情况下,较短的HADS-D是首选。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1