The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression in pregnant and postpartum women. Design: Individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from inception to 3 October 2018). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Eligible datasets included EPDS scores and major depression classification based on validated diagnostic interviews. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate EPDS sensitivity and specificity compared with semi-structured, fully structured (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) excluded), and MINI diagnostic interviews separately using individual participant data. One stage meta-regression was used to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics. Results: Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher, respectively. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women. Conclusions: An EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity; a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific. To identify pregnant and postpartum women with higher symptom levels, a cut-off of 13 or higher could be used. Lower cut-off values could be used if the intention is to avoid false negatives and identify most patients who meet diagnostic criteria. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42015024785).
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In an individual participant data meta-analysis, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) maximised combined sensitivity and specificity at a cut-off of 11 or higher for detecting major depression in pregnant and postpartum women. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including pregnant versus postpartum status.
Key findings
- Among 58 included studies (15,557 participants; 2,069 with major depression), combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at an EPDS cut-off of 11 or higher across reference standards (Youden’s J=0.70 for semi-structured, 0.73 for fully structured, 0.66 for MINI).
- For semi-structured interviews (36 studies, 9,066 participants, 1,330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) at ≥10; 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) at ≥11; and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) at ≥13.
- Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including pregnant and postpartum women; no other study or participant characteristics were consistently associated with differences in sensitivity or specificity across both semi-structured and MINI categories.
- For major depression prevalence of 5–25% and a cut-off of ≥11 compared with semi-structured interviews, positive predictive values ranged from 26% to 69% and negative predictive values from 93% to 99%.
Methods
- Individual participant data meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42015024785) of studies administering the EPDS and classifying major depression via validated semi-structured or fully structured diagnostic interviews, with EPDS and interview no more than two weeks apart, in adult women during pregnancy or within 12 months postpartum.
- Searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to 3 October 2018; obtained individual participant data from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15,557 of 22,788 eligible participants, 68%).
- Estimated sensitivity and specificity separately for semi-structured, fully structured (MINI excluded), and MINI reference standards using bivariate random effects models across cut-off values 7–15; used one-stage meta-regression to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics.
Limitations
- The paper states that data were not obtained from 25 of 83 published eligible datasets, moderate heterogeneity was found across studies, and subgroup analyses by cultural aspects, country or language, or specific pregnancy trimesters/postpartum periods could not be conducted because data were insufficient; few studies from low and middle income countries were included.
- The paper also states that while studies were categorised by interview administered, interviews might not always have been used as intended, and one third of studies were coded as unclear for interviewer qualification in risk of bias assessment.
- Evident from the text: the fully structured reference standard subgroup was very small (3 studies for sensitivity and 4 for specificity; 3,188 participants, 227 with major depression), and one study included only one participant with major depression; age <25 subgroup analyses excluded four semi-structured and four MINI studies with no participants with major depression.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression).”
- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
“Authors of included studies contributed data from two other studies that the search did not retrieve for a total of 58 datasets (15 557 participants, 2069 with major depression).”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 557Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression).”
- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
“Of 22 788 participants in 83 eligible published studies, 15 557 (68%) were included.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 788Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70%; 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression).”
- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
“Authors of included studies contributed data from two other studies that the search did not retrieve for a total of 58 datasets (15 557 participants, 2069 with major depression).”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Search results and dataset inclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eligible studies that did and did not contribute data were generally similar in terms of sample size, proportion of participants with major depression (excluding non-contributing studies where number with major depression was not reported), and country human development index.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > Search results and dataset inclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirty six studies used semi-structured reference standards, including 34 that used the SCID; four used fully structured reference standards (MINI excluded), including three that used the CIDI; and 18 used the MINI (table 1).”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > Search results and dataset inclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of 58 included studies, 25 included pregnant women, 30 postpartum women, and three both pregnant and postpartum women.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > Search results and dataset inclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 1,330Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The proportion of studies with pregnant women only was also similar for contributing and non-contributing studies.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > Search results and dataset inclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among both contributing and non-contributing studies, most studies used semi-structured interviews as the reference standard, followed by the MINI, and other fully structured interviews.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > Search results and dataset inclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher”
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
“At cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher, which are commonly used for depression screening,13 sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 84%, and 66% and 95%, respectively.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > EPDS sensitivity and specificity by reference standard category
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care, with cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher typically used to identify women who might be depressed.
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For major depression prevalence values of 5-25% and a cut-off value of 11 or higher compared with semi-structured interviews, positive predictive values ranged from 26% to 69% and negative predictive values ranged from 93% to 99%.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > EPDS sensitivity and specificity by reference standard category
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher”
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
“sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 88% for a cut-off value of 11 or higher.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > EPDS sensitivity and specificity by reference standard category
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
In the paper
“Based on studies with a semi-structured reference standard, across cut-off values of 10-13, sensitivity estimates in the present IPDMA were 6-13% lower than those in the previous meta-analysis, whereas specificity estimates were 4-7% higher.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no significant or substantive differences based on country human development index, but few studies from low and middle income countries were included.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher”
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
“At cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher, which are commonly used for depression screening,13 sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 84%, and 66% and 95%, respectively.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > EPDS sensitivity and specificity by reference standard category
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care, with cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher typically used to identify women who might be depressed.
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher for semi-structured interviews (Youden’s J=0.70), fully structured interviews (Youden’s J=0.73), and the MINI (Youden’s J=0.66).”
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
“Our main finding was that combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“we found that combined sensitivity and specificity for the EPDS is maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Results > EPDS sensitivity and specificity by reference standard category
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Principal findings · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The systematic review conducted to support the USPSTF guideline reported the range of accuracy estimates for EPDS cut-off values of 10 or higher (14 studies) and 13 or higher (17 studies) in 23 primary studies, but did not include a meta-analysis.14 15”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] O’Connor E Rossom RC Henninger M . Screening for depression in adults: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force: evidence synthesis No. 128. [AHRQ Publication No. 14-05208-EF-1] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016.
- Not checked yetcites [15] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By design, fully structured interviews are intended to increase standardisation, but this could be at the cost of reduced validity.39 40 41 42”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Statistical analyses
What the sources say
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. For publications deemed potentially eligible by either reviewer, a full text review was done by two reviewers, also independently. Any conflicts were resolved by consensus and a third reviewer was consulted if necessary.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Database searches and study selection
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The 10 item EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care; cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher are most often used to identify women who might have depression.11 12 13 14 15”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The USPSTF recommends screening pregnant and postpartum women with the EPDS, but does not specify a cut-off value.9”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An existing meta-analysis that has examined EPDS screening accuracy searched databases through February 2007 and found that combined sensitivity and specificity to detect major depression in postpartum women was greater for a cut-off value of 12 or higher (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.87, 15 studies) than for a cut-off value of 10 or higher (sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.77, 14 studies) or 13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The 10 item EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care; cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher are most often used to identify women who might have depression.11 12 13 14 15”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This IPDMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015024785), a protocol was published,20 and the results were reported following PRISMA-DTA (preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies)21 and PRISMA-IPD (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data)22 guidelines.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We verified that participant characteristics and accuracy results from individual datasets matched those that had been published. If any discrepancies were found, we worked with the primary study investigators to understand and resolve differences.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Data contribution, extraction, and synthesis
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the optimal cut-off value for screening remains unknown, and whether different cut-off values are needed for women with different characteristics needs to be determined.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For analyses in the age less than 25 subgroup, we excluded four semi-structured studies and four MINI studies that did not have any participants with major depression because the bivariate random effects model could not be applied. Therefore, 21 participants (1%) younger than 25 were excluded from semi-structured studies, and 77 (9%) from MINI studies.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Statistical analyses
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The MINI is a brief version of a fully structured interview that was designed for rapid administration and tends to be overinclusive.36”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Statistical analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We analysed studies that used different types of reference standards separately because we previously found that, controlling for depressive symptom levels, the MINI might classify depression more than other diagnostic interviews, and the CIDI might classify more participants with low level symptoms as having depression but fewer with high level symptoms.16 17 18”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Statistical analyses
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2; eMethods2)31 to assess risk of bias of included studies. Two investigators independently performed this assessment and any differences were resolved through consensus or by involving a third investigator if necessary.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Risk of bias assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity; a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Abstract > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two investigators independently extracted information on the diagnostic interview administered and the country of study from the published reports.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Data contribution, extraction, and synthesis
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A medical librarian designed a peer reviewed29 search strategy (eMethods1 in supplementary material) and searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, and PsycINFO through OvidSP, and Web of Science through ISI Web of Knowledge from inception to 3 October 2018.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Database searches and study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS – Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). CADTH. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CP0015_PRESS_Update_Report_2016.pdf 2016 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The results were not pooled for pregnant women because there were too few studies, and no subgroup analyses were conducted among postpartum women because primary studies did not report the necessary data.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No participants had missing data for any covariates in the meta-regressions.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Methods > Statistical analyses
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, we did not obtain data from 25 of 83 published eligible datasets, although the results did not change when we incorporated published results from studies that did not contribute data but published eligible accuracy results.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Strengths include analysis of data from more than twice the number of studies compared with the previous conventional meta-analysis,13 and including results for all cut-off values from all studies.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The cut-off value of 11 or higher that maximised combined sensitivity and specificity in the present study is lower than both the most commonly used cut-off value of 13 or higher13 and the cut-off value of 12 or higher that maximised combined sensitivity and specificity in a previous EPDS accuracy meta-analysis.13”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care, with cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher typically used to identify women who might be depressed.
In the paper
“The previous meta-analysis did not pool results for pregnant women because too few studies were found, and no subgroup analyses were conducted among postpartum women because primary studies did not report the necessary data”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Conclusions > What is already known on this topic
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A previous meta-analysis of the screening accuracy of the EPDS, which was conducted more than 13 years ago, found that a cut-off value of 12 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity in postpartum women (21 studies)”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Conclusions > What is already known on this topic
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one third of studies were coded as unclear for interviewer qualification in our risk of bias assessment.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Differences in results between the current IPDMA and the previous meta-analysis might have occurred because the current IPDMA consisted of 58 primary studies, including 36 with a semi-structured reference standard, versus 21 primary studies with various types of reference standards in the previous meta-analysis.”
§ Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data > Discussion > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care, with cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher typically used to identify women who might be depressed.
“The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care, with cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher typically used to identify women who might be depressed”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, selection of this lower threshold score maximizes sensitivity of this screening tool to detect major depression [37].”
From Factors associated with postpartum depression symptoms following antepartum hospitalization (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The most commonly used cut-off scores are ≥10 and ≥ 13 with sensitivity and specificity values of 85 % and 84 %, and 66 % and 95 %, respectively (Levis et al., 2020).”
From PandaMom – Feasibility and acceptability of an internet- and mobile-based intervention to enhance peripartum mental well-being and to prevent postpartum depression (2024) · cites this paper as Levis et al., 2020
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting counts of studies that did not contribute data
MinorThe results section says 26 eligible studies did not contribute individual participant data, but the limitations section says data were not obtained from 25 of 83 eligible datasets. The reported totals of 83 eligible and 58 included also leave 25 without data.
“eight of the 26 studies that did not contribute individual participant data”
“we did not obtain data from 25 of 83 published eligible datasets”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Detection of Postnatal Depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Cox, J. L., Holden, J. M., & Sagovsky, R. (1987) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.150.6.782 · Cited by 14,183
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
Hu, R. J. (2003) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b0-12-226870-9/01070-4 · Cited by 9,168
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700
Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, D., Weiller, E., Amorim, P., Bonora, I., Sheehan, K. H., Janavs, J., & Dunbar, G. (1997) · European Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(97)83296-8 · Cited by 3,513
McInnes, M. D. F., Moher, D., Thombs, B. D., McGrath, T. A., Bossuyt, P. M., and the PRISMA-DTA Group, Clifford, T., Cohen, J. F., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., et al. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163 · Cited by 3,210
Self-citationRobins, L. N. (1988) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800360017003 · Cited by 2,909
Sheehan, D., Lecrubier, Y., Harnett Sheehan, K., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., Keskiner, A., Schinka, J., Knapp, E., Sheehan, M., & Dunbar, G. (1997) · European Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(97)83297-x · Cited by 2,149
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- O’Connor E Rossom RC Henninger M . Screening for depression in adults: an updated systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force: evidence synthesis No. 128. [AHRQ Publication No. 14-05208-EF-1] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2016.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 922
Carroll, A., Appleton, J., & Harris, K. M. (2023) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14005 · Cited by 11
“Using a more conservative cut-off score of ≥ 13 to avoid false negatives, as recommended by Levis et al. (2020), 17.6% of mothers likely meet the diagnostic criteria of major depressive disorder.”
InfluentialGidén, K., Vinnerljung, L., Iliadis, S. I., Fransson, E., & Skalkidou, A. (2024) · European Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.6 · Cited by 11
Harel, D., Wu, Y., Levis, B., Fan, S., Sun, Y., Xu, M., Rice, D. B., Boruff, J. T., Markham, S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.06.033 · Cited by 11
Self-citationSajjad, A., Shah, S., Abbas, G., Aslam, A., Randhawa, F. A., Khurram, H., & Assiri, A. A. (2024) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.17711 · Cited by 14
“…greater sensitivity in South Asians and various other cultural settings ( Bhusal et al., 2016 ; Boyce, Stubbs & Todd, 1993 ; Cox, Holden & Sagovsky, 1987 ; Levis et al., 2020 ; Murray & Carothers, 1990 ) and used to identify individuals with significant PPD symptoms ( Smith-Nielsen et al., 2021 ).”
BackgroundMaulina, R., Kuo, S., Liu, C., Lu, Y., Khuzaiyah, S., & Caparrós-González, R. A. (2024) · Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health · doi:10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101904 · Cited by 13
Women's Perspectives and Challenges in Adopting Perinatal Mental Health Technologies
Progga, F. T., & Rubya, S. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3701217 · Cited by 12
“This score indicates a moderate level of depression among the participants, underlining the critical need to address mental health concerns within this demographic, aligning with the study’s focus [64].”
Fries, L. R., Boehme, M., Lavalle, L., Sakwińska, O., Chughlay, F., Keddani, S., Porta, N., Vicario, M., Bergonzelli, G. E., Zolezzi, I. S., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-95651-1 · Cited by 11
“Secondary outcomes included probable depression (defined as an EPDS score ≥ 13 30,32 ) at each time point, change in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) 29 (anxiety and depression subscales) from baseline to postpartum, Parenting Stress Index (PSI) 33 score at 12 weeks postpartum,…”
Lilliesköld, S., Lode‐Kolz, K., Westrup, B., Bergman, N., Sorjonen, K., Ådén, U., Mörelius, E., Rettedal, S., & Jonas, W. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.04.160 · Cited by 14
States Transitions Inference of Postpartum Depression Based on Multi-State Markov Model
Xiong, J., Fang, Q., Chen, J., Li, Y., Li, H., Li, W., & Zheng, X. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18147449 · Cited by 11
Kolker, S., Biringer, A. B., Bytautas, J., Kukan, S., & Carroll, J. C. (2022) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2022.06.008 · Cited by 12
Miller, A. P., SHOPTAW, S. J., Moucheraud, C., Mvududu, R., Essack, Z., Gorbach, P. M., Myer, L., & Davey, D. J. (2022) · JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · doi:10.1097/qai.0000000000003133 · Cited by 10
Meister, S., Dreyer, E.-M., Hahn, L., Thomann, M., Keilmann, L., Beyer, S., Mayer, C., Prins, G., Hasbargen, U., Mahner, S., et al. (2022) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-022-06854-0 · Cited by 11
“An EPDS value of 10 or higher has a middle (10–12) to high (> / = 13) probability for depression [26].”
BackgroundBirkelund, K. S., Rasmussen, S. S., Shwank, S. E., Johnson, J., & Acharya, G. (2023) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.14525 · Cited by 9
Chambers, G. M., Botha, W., Reilly, N. M., Black, E., Kingston, D. E., & Austin, M. (2021) · Women and Birth · doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2021.05.007 · Cited by 11
Huang, Y.-Q., Mao, F.-X., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Xu, Z.-J., & Cao, F. (2023) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-04853-2 · Cited by 12
“The EPDS has been widely used and has good reliability and validity [21].”
MethodYang, Y., Luo, B., Ren, J.-H., Deng, X. J., & Guo, X. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070234 · Cited by 11
“The second wave of data collection was conducted at the obstetric outpatient clinic of the hospital in the third trimester of pregnancy (T2: after 28 weeks of gestation according to the Chinese standards of pregnancy staging) during routine antenatal follow-up.”
Interactions of perinatal depression versus anxiety and infants' early temperament trajectories
Sörensen, F., Kimmel, M., Brenner, V., Krägeloh‐Mann, I., Skalkidou, A., Mahjani, B., & Fransson, E. (2023) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.14041 · Cited by 10
Gupta, A., Pajai, S., Gupta, A., Thakur, A. S., Muneeba, S., Batra, N., & Patel, D. J. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.54245 · Cited by 10
“It is recommended to administer the EPDS within the first postpartum week, given the common occurrence of mood fluctuations during this period [11,13].”
BackgroundBradley, H. A., Moltchanova, E. V., Mulder, R., Dixon, L., Henderson, J., & Rucklidge, J. J. (2024) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2024.706 · Cited by 10
“A cut-off ≥ 13 identifies women in the moderate range of depression and has demonstrated high specificity with major depressive disorder (0.95), 17 suggesting the EPDS can accurately identify antenatal depression.”
BackgroundInfluentialJáni, M., Mikeš, O., Mareček, R., Brázdil, M., & Marečková, K. (2024) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2024.111062 · Cited by 11
Bakirci, A. E., Şar, V., & Cetin, A. (2024) · The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research · doi:10.1007/s11414-024-09896-1 · Cited by 11
Early-life risk factors for both infant colic and excessive crying without colic
Switkowski, K. M., Oken, E., Simonin, E. M., Nadeau, K. C., Rifas‐Shiman, S. L., & Lightdale, J. R. (2024) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-024-03518-4 · Cited by 10
“All analyses were conducted using”
Schwarze, C. E., Lerche, V., Wallwiener, S., & Pauen, S. (2024) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-024-06757-9 · Cited by 11
Miafo, J. D., Nzebou, D., Stoll, B., Ngambia, J. C. Y., Ngamby, M. K., Ottino, S. V. O., & Moayedoddin, A. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-79370-7 · Cited by 18
Neupane, S., Vuong, A. M., Haboush-Deloye, A. L., Mancha, K., & Buccini, G. (2025) · International Breastfeeding Journal · doi:10.1186/s13006-025-00734-4 · Cited by 12
Pre-pregnancy sleep duration and postpartum depression: a multicenter study in Japan
Matsuo, S., Ushida, T., Iitani, Y., Imai, K., Nakano‐Kobayashi, T., Moriyama, Y., Yoshida, S., Yamashita, M., Kajiyama, H., & Kotani, T. (2021) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-021-01136-1 · Cited by 10
Liu, L., Xu, D. R., Tong, Y., Shi, J., Zeng, Z., & Gong, W. (2022) · Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1080/0167482x.2022.2052845 · Cited by 10
Deutsch, A. R., Vargas, M., Lucchini, M., Brink, L. T., Odendaal, H. J., & Elliott, A. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2022.100365 · Cited by 11
“…a binary score, using the recommended cut off of 13, which is less sensitive, but more specific for identifying women with diagnoses of depression (Levis et al., 2020), and following findings that antenatal depression cutoffs are slightly higher than postnatal depression cutoffs (Kozinszky and…”
BackgroundGow, M. L., Lam, Y. W. I., Jebeile, H., Craig, M. E., Susic, D. F., & Henry, A. (2022) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.13081 · Cited by 10
Lin, J., Zhou, Y., & Gu, W. T. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.949481 · Cited by 13
Dachew, B. A., Heron, J., & Alati, R. (2023) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.01.019 · Cited by 11
Abujilban, S. K., Al‐Omari, H., Issa, E., ALhamdan, A., Al-nabulsi, L., Mrayan, L., Mahmoud, K. F., & Kernohan, G. W. (2023) · Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association · doi:10.1177/10783903231171595 · Cited by 10
“The EPDS (Cox et al., 1987) is a self-administered 10-question screening tool that was originally validated for identifying symptoms of postpartum depression (Levis et al., 2020).”
MethodGorgui, J., Tchuente, V., Pagès, N., Fareh, T., King, S., Elgbeili, G., Bérard, A., & the CONCEPTION Study Group (2023) · Canadian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.17269/s41997-023-00814-0 · Cited by 10
“We categorized maternal depression and anxiety symptoms scores as follows: no depression < 9, moderate depression 9–12, and severe depression ≥ 13 using the EPDS cutoff (Levis et al., 2020); no anxiety ≤ 9, moderate anxiety 10–15, and severe anxiety > 15 using the GAD-7 cut-off (Spitzer et al.”
MethodPreis, H., Djurić, P. M., Ajirak, M., Chen, T., Mane, V., Garry, D. J., Heiselman, C. J., Chappelle, J., & Lobel, M. (2022) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-022-01259-z · Cited by 12
“Several cut off scores are offered for the EPDS to indicate likelihood of clinically relevant depression (Levis et al. 2020).”
BackgroundBraddon, A., Robinson, S., Alati, R., & Betts, K. S. (2022) · Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/ppe.12942 · Cited by 12
Improving mother-infant bonding in postnatal depression − The SURE MUMS study
Loh, A. H. Y., Ong, L. L., Yong, F. S. H., & Chen, H. Y. (2023) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2023.103457 · Cited by 10
Sasaki, N., Akiyama, H., Kawakami, N., & Nishi, D. (2021) · Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1080/0167482x.2021.2010699 · Cited by 9
Yang, X. M., Han, R., Song, Y., Zhang, J., Huang, H., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., & Gao, L. (2023) · Journal of Midwifery & Women s Health · doi:10.1111/jmwh.13589 · Cited by 9
Screening for perinatal depression and stress: a prospective cohort study
Papapetrou, C., Zouridis, A., Eleftheriades, A., Panoskaltsis, T., Panoulis, K. P. C., Vlahos, N., & Eleftheriades, M. I. (2023) · Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · doi:10.1007/s00404-023-07306-z · Cited by 9
“A cut-off value of 10 or higher is suggested to maximize combined sensitivity and specificity in indicating cases in high risk for major depression [25].”
Wang, J., Liu, H., & Wei, X. (2024) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115890 · Cited by 9
Žutić, M., Matijaš, M., Štefulj, J., Brekalo, M., & Radoš, S. N. (2024) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-024-07046-1 · Cited by 11
Cárdenas, E. F., Yu, E., Jackson, M., Humphreys, K. L., & Kujawa, A. (2025) · Women s Health · doi:10.1177/17455057251320801 · Cited by 12
“21 The criteria for PPD are not distinct from general depressive disorders other than timing of onset.”
Seward, N., Garman, E. C., Davies, T., Hanlon, C., MacBeth, A. M., Stewart, R. C., Waqas, A., Araya, R., & Lund, C. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.03.159 · Cited by 10
Giles, L., & Khoury, J. E. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.119417 · Cited by 9
Perrykkad, K., Nicholls, I., Lewis, A. J., Boyce, P. M., Wynter, K. H., Bobevski, I., & Galbally, M. (2025) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/00048674251361756 · Cited by 10
“The third study drew on a sample of 131 antenatal women and found a sensitivity of 27% and specificity of 96% at a cut off of 13 and above (Eapen et al., 2013; Levis et al., 2020).”
InfluentialGilbert, L., Rossel, J., Quansah, D. Y., Puder, J. J., & Horsch, A. (2021) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110489 · Cited by 10
“This cut-off was chosen based on the high sensitivity and specificity it has in detecting symptoms of depression [42,44,41].”
MethodBranquinho, M., Canavarro, M. C., & Fonseca, A. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.23320 · Cited by 9
Ashworth, D., Bowen, L., Maule, S. P., Seed, P. T., Green, M., Bick, D., BPiPP study group, & Chappell, L. C. (2022) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-022-04540-2 · Cited by 9
“In line with recent literature, an EPDS cutoff of 13 or more was used to identify women for further assessment for depression [22].”
MethodGow, M. L., Rossiter, C., Roberts, L., Henderson, M., Yang, L., Roche, J., Hayes, E., Canty, A. M., Denney‐Wilson, E., & Henry, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1000371 · Cited by 9
Robidoux, H., Williams, A. A., Cormack, C. L., & Johnson, E. E. (2023) · Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health · doi:10.1007/s10903-023-01503-3 · Cited by 7
Cockshaw, W. D., Thorpe, K. J., Giannotti, M., & Raine, K. H. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2023.08.025 · Cited by 9
Impact of the trait anxiety during pregnancy on birth weight: an observational cohort study
Sandonis, M., Temprado, J., Hernández‐Fleury, A., Parramón, G., Dip, M. E., Ramos‐Quiroga, J. A., Maíz, N., Carreras, E., & Brik, M. (2023) · Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1080/0167482x.2023.2241631 · Cited by 12
Baeisa, R. S., AlDardeir, N., Alsulami, M., Alsulami, A., Al-Sharif, J., Alshahrany, T. A., & Alghamdi, W. (2023) · Saudi Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences · doi:10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_601_22 · Cited by 9
Han, R., Sun, K., Zheng, J., & Gao, L. (2022) · Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology · doi:10.1080/02646838.2022.2135175 · Cited by 9
“Although the EPDS was originally developed and validated for maternal postpartum depression, it has since been validated to assess depressive symptoms in pregnant women and their partners (Lai et al., 2010; Levis et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021).”
MethodLiu, L., Zhou, M., Xiao, G., Zhang, T., Li, X., Owusua, T., He, W., & Qin, C. (2022) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2022.103551 · Cited by 11
Monthé‐Drèze, C., Aris, I. M., Rifas‐Shiman, S. L., Shivappa, N., Hébert, J. R., Oken, E., & Sen, S. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.51367 · Cited by 9
Women's perinatal depression: Anhedonia-related symptoms have increased in the COVID-19 pandemic
Costa, R. A., Pinto, T. M., Conde, A., Mesquita, A. R., Motrico, E., & Figueiredo, B. (2023) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.06.007 · Cited by 8
Longoria, K. D., Nguyen, T. C., Franco‐Rocha, O. Y., Garcia, S. R., Lewis, K., Gandra, S., Cates, F. E., & Wright, M. L. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290059 · Cited by 13
Takács, L., Abuaish, S., Kaňková, Š., Hill, M., Ullmann, J., Včelák, J., & Monk, C. E. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.141 · Cited by 8
Bruinhof, N., Beijers, R., Lustermans, H., & de Weerth, C. (2025) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.14119 · Cited by 8
“A score of 11 is advised as a cutoff score for an indication of subclinical depression (Levis, Negeri, Sun, Benedetti, & Thombs, 2020).”
Singh, S., van de Wouw, M., Tomfohr‐Madsen, L. M., Lebel, C. A., & Giesbrecht, G. F. (2025) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109572 · Cited by 9
A Systematic Review of Interventions for Perinatal Suicidal Behaviour in Women
Scarth, B., Derakhshan, E., Witt, K., & Andriessen, K. (2025) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/jpm.70061 · Cited by 8
ECD - Pregnancy outcomes of a birth cohort. Are adolescent mothers really at more risk?
Harrison, A., Gordon-Strachan, G. M., Bateman, C. J., Trotman, H., Olugbuyi, O., Lambert, M., Ashley, D., Griffith, A., & Samms‐Vaughan, M. E. (2021) · Psychology Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2021.1909740 · Cited by 8
“This cut-point was used to optimize combined sensitivity and specificity of identifying clinically significant depressive symptoms (Levis et al., 2020).”
MethodOyekunle, O. O., Bella-Awusah, T. T., Ayede, A. I., Omigbodun, O. O., & Ani, C. C. (2021) · Journal of Tropical Pediatrics · doi:10.1093/tropej/fmab038 · Cited by 8
“The absence of treatment effect on EPDS scores may be because the questionnaire was administered <2 weeks post-partum; hence it might have captured general distress and post-partum blues, rather than post-partum depression [22].”
BackgroundMethodLau, H. X., Kee, M. Z. L., Yap, Q. V., Tham, E. H., Chan, Y. H., Goh, A. E. N., Teoh, O. H., Eriksson, J. G., Godfrey, K. M., Gluckman, P. D., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2022.749323 · Cited by 9
Ramohlola, M. C., Maimela, E., & Ntuli, T. S. (2022) · South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.7196/sajog.2022.v28i2.2097 · Cited by 9
Fogarty, A., Brown, S., Gartland, D., Mensah, F. K., FitzPatrick, K. M., & Giallo, R. (2023) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115261 · Cited by 7
Boisvert, C., Talarico, R., Gandhi, J., Kaluzienski, M., Dingwall‐Harvey, A. L. J., White, R. R., Sampsel, K., Wen, S. W., Walker, M. C., Muldoon, K. A., et al. (2023) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-023-05903-z · Cited by 12
“The EPDS is the most reliable and widely used screening tool for PPD [26].”
MethodSu, X., Zhang, Y., Chen, M., Wang, H., & Liu, G. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1252789 · Cited by 10
Ciolac, L., Craina, M. L., ENĂTESCU, V. R., Tudor, A., Bernad, E. S., Nitu, R., Hogea, L., Boscu, L., Bernad, B.-C., Timircan, M. O., et al. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11212857 · Cited by 9
A Critical Look at Omega-3 Supplementation: A Thematic Review
Liscano, Y., & Palacio, N. S. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11233065 · Cited by 9
“The PDSS has been effectively used in telephone screenings and in Spanish-speaking and Native American communities [28,29].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOptimal cut-offs of depression screening tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review
Zhou, J., Radojčić, M. R., Ashton-James, C. E., Yang, H., Chen, Z., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Si, J., Yao, L., Ge, L., et al. (2023) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-05455-8 · Cited by 10
Lenze, S. N., McKay-Gist, K., Paul, R. A., Tepe, M. D., Mathews, K., Kornfield, S. L., Phillips, C., Smith, R., Stoermer, A., & Carter, E. B. (2024) · Health Equity · doi:10.1089/heq.2023.0160 · Cited by 8
“37,38 We also collected data on additional psychosocial measures of stress, anxiety, and trauma (see Supplementary Data).”
MethodCosta, R. A., Mesquita, A. R., Motrico, E., Domínguez‐Salas, S., Dikmen‐Yildiz, P., Saldivia, S., Vousoura, E., Osório, A., Wilson, C. A., Bina, R., et al. (2024) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/acps.13664 · Cited by 11
Zhou, F., Wu, J., Wang, L., Hao, Y., Zhang, C., Liu, H., Li, C., Booij, L., Herba, C. M., Ouyang, F., et al. (2024) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104165 · Cited by 8
Digital phenotyping of depression during pregnancy using self-report data
Allen, K., Rodriguez, S. N., Hayani, L., Rothenberger, S. D., Moses‐Kolko, E. L., Simhan, H. N., & Krishnamurti, T. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.029 · Cited by 9
“This scoring approach is the recommended threshold for major depression during pregnancy (Murray and Cox, 1990) and within the range of validated EPDS scoring thresholds for moderate-to-severe depression (Hewitt et al., 2009; Levis et al., 2020).”
Duncan, L. G., Zhang, N., Santana, T., Cook, J. G., Castro-Smyth, L., Hutchison, M. S., Huynh, T., Mallareddy, D., Jurkiewicz, L., & Bardacke, N. (2023) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-023-02227-z · Cited by 8
“Using the cut-point of 10 and above on the EPDS to maximize sensitivity and avoid false negatives (Levis et al., 2020), 10% of the CP + group ( n = 2 of 20) and 42.1% of the CP group ( n = 8 of 19) met the criteria for possible clinical depression.”
InfluentialDye, C. K., Wu, H., Monk, C. E., Belsky, D. W., Alschuler, D. M., Lee, S., O’Donnell, K. J., & Scorza, P. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.03.02.530806 · Cited by 8
“cutoff (EPDS score > 10), which is recommended cutoff for a probable case of major depression in pregnant women.(47) Parity, measured at 18 weeks gestation as the number of prior live or stillbirth, was 0.”
BackgroundVanderkruik, R. C., Freeman, M. P., Nonacs, R. M., Jellinek, M. S., Gaw, M. L., Clifford, C. A., Bartels, S. J., & Cohen, L. S. (2023) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.04.012 · Cited by 8
Chrzan-Dętkoś, M., Murawska, N., & Łockiewicz, M. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.10.068 · Cited by 8
Reproducibility of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale during the Postpartum Period
Ezirim, N., Younes, L., Barrett, J. H., Kauffman, R. P., Macleay, K. J., Newton, S. T., & Tullar, P. E. (2021) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1727226 · Cited by 7
Sun, J., Cui, N., Shao, D., Li, J., Zhang, H., Li, J., Zhang, X., & Cao, F. (2023) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.3291 · Cited by 7
Epigenetic age acceleration and reproductive outcomes in women
Schlomer, G. L. (2023) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.11.003 · Cited by 6
Shang, J., Hackett, M. L., Harris, K., Woodward, M., Roberts, L. M., Zhang, P., & Henry, A. (2024) · Pregnancy Hypertension · doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2023.12.008 · Cited by 8
Boama-Nyarko, E., Flahive, J., Zimmermann, M., Allison, J. J., Person, S. D., Simas, T. A. M., & Byatt, N. (2024) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.02.006 · Cited by 7
Fijean, A., Marçais, M., Banasiak, C., Morel, O., Dahlhoff, S., Oliéric, M.-F., Mottet, N., Epstein, J., & Bertholdt, C. (2024) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15722 · Cited by 7
“7 The accuracy of this self-administered questionnaire has been verified by several systematic reviews and meta-analyses.”
Maguet, C., Downes, N., Marr, K., Sutter‐Dallay, A., Galéra, C., Wallez, S., Kirschbaum, C., Gressier, F., Melchior, M., Charles, M.-A. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.08.032 · Cited by 9
van Zundert, S. K. M., van Rossem, L., Mirzaian, M., Willemsen, S. P., Voskamp, L. W., Bastiaansen, W., Nikpayam, D., Griffioen, P. H., Schilleman, W. F., Koning, A. H. J., et al. (2024) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deae211 · Cited by 7
Wang, R., Liang, X., & Su, X. (2024) · World Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.5498/wjp.v14.i10.1448 · Cited by 12
Buhagiar, R., Bettenzana, K., & Grant, K. (2024) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2024.104256 · Cited by 8
Lim, X., Ang, M. Q., Foo, A., Chng, K. K. Y., & Koh, S. S. L. (2024) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.16019 · Cited by 7
“45,46 HADS was developed to identify probable anxiety disorders and depression.”
Cannabis Use and Trajectories of Depression and Stress Across the Prenatal Period
Constantino-Pettit, A. M., Tillman, R., Wilson, J., Lashley-Simms, N., Vatan, N. M., Atkinson, A., Leverett, S. D., Lenze, S. N., Smyser, C. D., Bogdan, R., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.51597 · Cited by 9
Barszcz, E., Plewka, M. K., Gajewska, A., Margulska, A., & Gawlik-Kotelnicka, O. (2025) · Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/00332747.2024.2447219 · Cited by 7
Ayadi, A. M. E., Diamond‐Smith, N., Duggal, M., Singh, P., Sharma, P., Kaur, J., Gopalakrishnan, L., Gill, N., Verma, G. S., Ahuja, A. S., et al. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07310-y · Cited by 7
Prevalence and associated factors of anxiety in postpartum women
Díaz-Ogallar, M. A., Martínez‐Vázquez, S., Hernández‐Martínez, A., Peinado‐Molina, R. A., & Martínez‐Galiano, J. M. (2025) · European Journal of Midwifery · doi:10.18332/ejm/204308 · Cited by 7
Psychosocial Influences on Breastfeeding Duration: Maternal, Paternal, and Infant Contributors
Fan, Y., Donovan, S. M., & Bost, K. K. (2025) · Current Developments in Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107537 · Cited by 8
Meloncelli, N. J. L., O'CONNOR, H. M., Wilkinson, S. A., Nitert, M. D., Kearney, L. N., & de Jersey, S. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15214653 · Cited by 7
“Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score [35]; 5.”
The effects of IPV and mental health symptoms on HPA axis functioning during early pregnancy
Levendosky, A. A., Martinez‐Torteya, C., Ballinger, A. L., Cochran, K. A., Bogat, G. A., Nuttall, A. K., Muzik, M., & Lonstein, J. S. (2023) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-023-01399-w · Cited by 7
“Third, we did not use a diagnostic interview; however, the cut-off scores on EPDS and the PCL-5 are consistent with other diagnostic indicators (Geier et al. 2019; Levis et al. 2020).”
D’Agostino, A., Garbazza, C., Malpetti, D., Azzimonti, L., Mangili, F., Stein, H.-C., del Giudice, R., Cicolin, A., Cirignotta, F., Manconi, M., et al. (2023) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115687 · Cited by 7
“MINI might fail to capture core aspects of PND, given that previous research has shown that the likelihood of being diagnosed a MDE increases less for the MINI than for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders (SCID) as EPDS total score increases (Levis et al., 2020).”
MethodBroberg, L., Bendix, J. M., Røhder, K., Løkkegaard, E., Væver, M. S., Grew, J., Johnsen, H. L., Juhl, M., de Lichtenberg, V., & Schiøtz, M. L. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21040454 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Levis, B., Negeri, Z., Sun, Y., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D.
- Affiliations
- Jewish General Hospital (CA)
- McGill University Health Centre (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Thombs, Brett D
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-11-11
- Volume
- 371
- Pages
- m4022
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7656313
- OpenAlex
- W3093810429
- Semantic Scholar
- 78cf2d7bf5e2dc7094c88c17b4deb98714fadfab
- Cited by
- 922
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 174 · 2025: 216 · 2024: 190 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 14.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation
- Yale University
- Universidad de Santiago de Chile
- University of Connecticut
- McGill University
- Faculty of Medicine, McGill University
- Sveučilište u Zagrebu
- Wellcome Trust (211374/Z/18/Z, 082384/Z/07/Z/, 071571)
- McGill University Health Centre
- Australian Government
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-1210-12002, RP-DG-1108-10012)
- Department of Health and Social Care
- University of Southampton
- King's College London
- University of Oxford
- University of Bristol
- National Research Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (0000000, 10002, 32003B, 125493)
- University of New South Wales
- Deakin University
- Monash University
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
- Chulalongkorn University (CU-56-457-HR)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (POCI 2010, 00000-00, 2014-5)
- Sapienza Università di Roma
- China Medical University Hospital
- Università degli Studi di Firenze
- Harry Crossley Foundation
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (0000000, POCI 2010)
- Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
- Université de Genève
- Ministério da Saúde
- Uppsala Universitet
- University of Cape Town
- China Medical University
- Universidade do Minho
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research
- Szegedi Tudományegyetem
- Werner Otto Stiftung
- Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University (453-0751)
- Feinberg School of Medicine
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (140994_1)
- Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
- Medical Research Council (MR/S035818/1)
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University
- Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-1210-12002)
- Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
- National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH64476)
- Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1130230)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, postpartum depression, major depressive disorder, pregnancy, screening accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, cut-off values, diagnostic interview, MINI, semi-structured interviews, reference materials, subgroup analysis, maternal mental health
- MeSH terms
- Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Prenatal Care, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
