Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies.
- 1 February 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Vol. 57 (535) , 144-51
Abstract
Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends one or two questions as a possible screening method for depression. Ultra-short (one-, two-, three- or four-item) tests have appeal due to their simple administration but their accuracy has not been established. To determine whether ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care. Pooled analysis and meta analysis. A literature search revealed 75 possible studies and from these, 22 STARD-compliant studies (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) involving ultra-short tests were entered in the analysis. Meta-analysis revealed a performance accuracy better than chance (P<0.001). More usefully for clinicians, pooled analysis of single-question tests revealed an overall sensitivity of 32.0% and specificity of 97.0% (positive predictive value [PPV] was 55.6% and negative predictive value [NPV] was 92.3%). For two- and three-item tests, overall sensitivity on pooled analysis was 73.7% and specificity was 74.7% with a PPV of only 38.3% but a pooled NPV of 93.0%. The Youden index for single-item and multiple item tests was 0.289 and 0.47 respectively, suggesting superiority of multiple item tests. Re-analysis examining only 'either or' strategies improved the 'rule in' ability of two- and three-question tests (sensitivity 79.4% and NPV 94.7%) but at the expense of being able to rule out a possible diagnosis if the result was negative. A one-question test identifies only three out of every 10 patients with depression in primary care, thus unacceptable if relied on alone. Ultra-short two- or three-question tests perform better, identifying eight out of 10 cases. This is at the expense of a high false-positive rate (only four out of 10 cases with a positive score are actually depressed). Ultra-short tests appear to be, at best, a method for ruling out a diagnosis and should only be used when there are sufficient resources for second-stage assessment of those who screen positive.Keywords
This publication has 61 references indexed in Scilit:
- The overdiagnosis of depression in non-depressed patients in primary careFamily Practice, 2006
- Time Spent in Face-to-Face Patient Care and Work Outside the Examination RoomAnnals of Family Medicine, 2005
- Screening for common mental disorders: who will benefit? Results from a randomised clinical trialFamily Practice, 2005
- Performance of the PHQ-9 as a Screening Tool for Depression After StrokeStroke, 2005
- The Recognition of Depression: The Primary Care Clinician's PerspectiveAnnals of Family Medicine, 2005
- Cost-Utility Analysis Studies of Depression Management: A Systematic ReviewAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 2004
- General Practitioner Recognition of Mental Illness in the Absence of a ‘Gold Standard’Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2004
- Use of brief depression screening tools in primary care: consideration of heterogeneity in performance in different patient groupsPublished by Elsevier ,2004
- Does a single item question identify elderly medical inpatients who report significant depressive symptoms?Age and Ageing, 2003
- Prevalence, recognition and management of depression in primary care in Germany: the Depression 2000 studyHuman Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 2002