Cited by 254Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesAging, Health, and DisabilityMental Health Treatment and Access

The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Pocklington, Claire, Gilbody, Simon, Manea, Laura, McMillan, Dean·2016·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Depression in older adults is often under recognised despite it being the most common mental health illness in this age group. An increasing older adult population highlights the need for improved diagnostic rates. Brief versions (15 items or less) of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), which are suitable for busy clinical practice, could improve detection rates. Objective Our aim is to establish the diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the GDS. Methods Twelve electronic databases of published and unpublished literature were searched. Study selection was in accordance with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A recognised gold-standard diagnostic instrument was used as a comparator against data pertaining to the use of a brief version of the GDS in an older adult population. The QUADAS-II was utilised for quality assessment. Narrative analysis and, where possible, meta-analysis were performed. Results Thirty-two studies were identified that provided diagnostic data regarding seven brief versions of the GDS (1, 4, 5, 7 8, 10 and 15-item versions). Pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.94), and specificity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65-0.86) for the GDS-15 at the recommended cut-off score of 5. Meta-analysis of other brief versions was not possible because of an insufficient number of studies with standardised items. Conclusions Results suggest the possibility of selective reporting of cut-off scores, and therefore, findings should be…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.4407

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 254

Authors
Pocklington, C., Gilbody, S., Manea, L., & McMillan, D.
Affiliations
  • Hull York Medical School (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
McMillan, Dean
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-18
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
837-857
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W2281202499
Cited by
254
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2012-03-002, CL-2012-03-002)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
Geriatric Depression Scale, geriatric depression, brief screening instrument, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, cut-off values, GDS-15, geriatric mental health
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Geriatric Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review