Deakin University
Browse
- No file added yet -

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

Download (1.01 MB)
Version 2 2024-06-03, 20:52
Version 1 2021-10-01, 08:01
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-03, 20:52 authored by D Neupane, B Levis, PM Bhandari, BD Thombs, A Benedetti, Y Sun, C He, Y Wu, A Krishnan, Z Negeri, M Imran, DB Rice, KE Riehm, N Saadat, M Azar, TA Sanchez, MJ Chiovitti, AW Levis, JT Boruff, P Cuijpers, S Gilbody, JPA Ioannidis, LA Kloda, SB Patten, I Shrier, RC Ziegelstein, L Comeau, ND Mitchell, M Tonelli, SN Vigod, DH Akena, R Alvarado, B Arroll, MO Bakare, HR Baradaran, CT Beck, CH Bombardier, A Bunevicius, G Carter, MH Chagas, LH Chaudron, R Cholera, K Clover, Y Conwell, T Castro e Couto, JM de Man-van Ginkel, J Delgadillo, JR Fann, N Favez, D Fung, L Garcia-Esteve, B Gelaye, F Goodyear-Smith, T Hyphantis, M Inagaki, K Ismail, N Jetté, DS Khalifa, ME Khamseh, J Kohlhoff, Z Kozinszky, L Kusminskas, SI Liu, M Lotrakul, SR Loureiro, B Löwe, SM Sidik, S Nakić Radoš, FL Osório, SJ Pawlby, BW Pence, TJ Rochat, AG Rooney, DJ Sharp, L Stafford, KP Su, SC Sung, M Tadinac, S Darius Tandon, P Thiagayson, A Töreki, A Torres-Giménez, Alyna TurnerAlyna Turner, CM van der Feltz-Cornelis, JM Vega-Dienstmaier, PA Vöhringer, J White, MA Whooley, K Winkley, M Yamada
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.

History

Journal

International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Volume

30

Article number

e1873

Pagination

1-15

Location

Chichester, Eng.

Open access

  • Yes

ISSN

1049-8931

eISSN

1557-0657

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Issue

3

Publisher

Wiley

Usage metrics

    Research Publications

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC