The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
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 Methods Twelve electronic databases of published and unpublished literature were searched.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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 GDS is the first depression scale designed for older adults and the most widely used depression screening instrument due to its simplicity, operability, and applicability to both community and clinical settings.
“The GDS is the first depression scale designed for older adults, 35 and the most widely used 36 depression screening instrument due to its simplicity, operability, and applicability to both community and clinical settings. 37,38”
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