Cited by 285Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Validation of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) in a sample of women with high-risk pregnancies in France

Adouard, F., Glangeaud-Freudenthal, N.M.C., Golse, B.·2005·Archives of Women’s Mental Health

Abstract

Unlabelled This research is intended to validate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in a high-risk pregnant population. Method Sixty women attending antenatal consultations for pregnancy complication in a major Parisian maternity facility were included. They completed the EPDS and were then interviewed according to a standardised psychiatric interview. Results The study of its sensitivity, specificity and predictive values, with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression as the reference, found that 11.5 was the optimal cut-off score (Se 0.80; Sp 0.80). Its validity as an index of severity of depression was also good as well as internal consistency and reliability. Factor analysis showed that its internal structure is composed of two subscales (F2 "depression" and F1 with items reflecting depression and other disorders, including anxiety). Conclusion The French version of the EPDS would be a valid instrument to identify pregnant women who are likely to have clinical major depression. The results may have to be confirmed on a community sample before clinical use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00737-005-0077-9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 EPDS threshold of 12 may be optimum for non-complicated pregnancies but not sensitive enough for those diagnosed as high-risk.

    “which supports the suggestion made by Adouard et al. that the threshold of 12 may be optimum for non-complicated pregnancies but not sensitive enough for those diagnosed as high-risk.13”

    From Prenatal Depression in Women Hospitalized for Obstetric Risk (2008) · cites this paper as [13]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adouard, F., Glangeaud-Freudenthal, N. M. C., & Golse, B.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
Venue
Archives of Women’s Mental Health
Published
2005-05-11
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
89-95
ISSN
  • 1434-1816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-1102
OpenAlex
W2007847526
Cited by
285
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Women s Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, postpartum depression, high-risk pregnancy, pregnancy complications, French adaptation, psychometric validation, cut-off values, major depressive disorder, depression severity, anxiety, prenatal care
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, France, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Mothers, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Pregnancy, High-Risk, Risk Assessment, Depression, Postpartum

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