Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 183

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic accuracy of various forms of geriatric depression scale for screening of depression among older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Krishnamoorthy, Yuvaraj, Rajaa, Sathish, Rehman, Tanveer·2020·Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Depression is under-reported and under-identified by the healthcare professionals. Geriatric depression scale (GDS) is one of the most commonly used instruments for screening the older adults for depression. The current review was done to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various forms of GDS for screening of depression among older adults. METHODS We conducted systematic search in various databases like Medline, Cochrane library, Sciencedirect and Google Scholar from inception till May 2019. Quality of trials was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to obtain the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for each of the GDS forms. RESULTS Totally 53 studies with 17,018 participants were included in the review. We found the pooled sensitivity and specificity of GDS 30 to be 82 % and 76 % with near higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.85). GDS 15 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86 % and 79 % with higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.90). GDS 10 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 87 % and 75 % with AUC = 0.83. Our study found GDS 4 to have sensitivity of 74 % with specificity of 71 %. All the four forms of GDS belonged to right lower quadrant of LR scatter-gram indicating neither confirmation nor exclusion. CONCLUSION Current study found that all the forms of GDS are highly useful for detecting depression among elderly with higher sensitivity and specificity. The diagnostic performance was much better for shorter forms of GDS such as GDS 15 and GDS 10 when compared to GDS 30.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.archger.2019.104002

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 183

Metadata

Authors
Krishnamoorthy, Y., Rajaa, S., & Rehman, T.
Venue
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
87
Pages
104002
ISSN
0167-4943 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995972627
Cited by
183
References
6
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diagnostic accuracy of various forms of geriatric depression scale for screening of depression among older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.archger.2019.104002
The paper
Krishnamoorthy, Y., Rajaa, S., & Rehman, T. (2020). Diagnostic accuracy of various forms of geriatric depression scale for screening of depression among older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.104002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.