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 401–500 of 922
Association between childhood trauma and postpartum depression among Brazilian puerperal women
Júnior, E. B. C., Andrade, A. C. D. S., Fernandes, M. N. D. F., & Gherardi‐Donato, E. C. D. S. (2024) · Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/1518-8345.6761.4170 · Cited by 4
Ayrout, R. A., Kookash, M. H., Ashabi, K. K. A., Safiah, M. H., & Latifeh, Y. (2024) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000038170 · Cited by 6
“[21] To ensure the clarity of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted with 30 participants, and adjustments were made based on their feedback.”
MethodMaternal Deaths by Suicide and Drug Overdose in Two Canadian Provinces; Retrospective Review
Aflaki, K., Ray, J. G., Edwards, W., Scott, H., Arbour, L. T., Darling, E., Moore, A. M., & Dzakpasu, S. (2024) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102581 · Cited by 4
Lewis, B. A., Schuver, K. J., Dregney, T. M., Terrell, C. A., & Stang, J. L. (2024) · Mental health and physical activity · doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2024.100623 · Cited by 4
Schmitt, G., Jamieson, B., Lim, D., & Atkinson, L. R. (2024) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579424001615 · Cited by 5
Eikemo, R., Nowak, Y. E., Åhlund, S., Vikström, A., Nyman, V., Jonas, W., & Barimani, M. M. (2024) · Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2024.101045 · Cited by 4
Bina, R., Levy, D., Alfayumi‐Zeadna, S., Mesquita, A. R., Costa, R. A., Domínguez‐Salas, S., Wilson, C. A., Osório, A., Vousoura, E., Uka, A., et al. (2025) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2025.104295 · Cited by 5
Worrall, S., Pike, O., Christiansen, P., Jackson, L., Pascalis, L. D., Harrold, J. A., Fallon, V., & Silverio, S. A. (2025) · Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1080/0167482x.2025.2459619 · Cited by 4
David, J.-C., Rascle, N., Auriacombe, M., Serre, F., Sutter‐Dallay, A., & Loyal, D. (2025) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-025-00556-z · Cited by 4
“The EPDS has also been used with pregnant women (Gib-son et al., 2009; Levis et al., 2020).”
Bening, J. E., Darko, F., Anterkyi, R., Narh, V. K., Prempeh, N. Y. A., Jain, N., Kwansa, A. L., Kontor, E. K., & Ntim, M. (2025) · Women s Health · doi:10.1177/17455057251343953 · Cited by 4
“%) in the classification of PPD. 26 Of note, in the present article we used “ likely depressed ” and “ not likely depressed ” as EPDS is a screening tool and cannot replace a clinical evaluation and diagnosis by a psychiatrist.”
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale used in South Korea
Oh, R., Khang, Y., & Kim, Y. (2021) · Journal of Korean Medical Association · doi:10.5124/jkma.2021.64.10.699 · Cited by 4
Alfayumi‐Zeadna, S., O’Rourke, N., Azbarga, Z., Froimovici, M., & Daoud, N. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192113959 · Cited by 4
“The EPDS was developed to screen for depression during pregnancy and postpartum [25,28].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOrsolini, L., Pompili, S., Mauro, A., & Volpe, U. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11030428 · Cited by 5
“Each item is scored on a four-point Likert scale (0–3), with a total score ranging from 0 to 30, and a clinically cut-off of ≥12 for the Italian sample which denotes a higher risk for developing PND [49].”
BackgroundAdams, Y. J., & Agbenyo, J. S. (2023) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/47519 · Cited by 4
Kim, Y., Oh, R., Cho, S.-H., June, K. J., Lee, J. Y., Cho, H., & Khang, Y. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289044 · Cited by 4
Karim, S., Liu, J., Wilcox, S., Cai, B., & Merchant, A. T. (2023) · Women s Health Issues · doi:10.1016/j.whi.2023.09.002 · Cited by 4
DeMairo, J., Rimsky, L., Moses, A., Birndorf, C. A., Bellenbaum, P., Nortwick, N. V., Osborne, L. M., & Robakis, T. K. (2023) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10995-023-03836-9 · Cited by 4
“1; Levis et al., 2020).”
Puppo, S., Cormick, G., Gibbons, L., Rodríguez, R., Correa, M., Smith, J., Marroquín, V., Rozic, P., Belizán, J. M., Schvartzman, J. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110748 · Cited by 4
Li, S., Wang, L., Wang, W., Hou, S., Xie, C., Zeng, M., Xian, J., Cai, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2022) · Sleep And Breathing · doi:10.1007/s11325-021-02553-3 · Cited by 4
“Multiple linear regressions showed that age, conception method, and PPD affected the total PSQI scores of puerperal women in the current study.”
MethodInfluentialOgah, A. O. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.12.13.23299669 · Cited by 4
Cruz-Rodríguez, J., Canals-Sans, J., Hernández-Martínez, C., & Arija, V. (2024) · Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology · doi:10.1080/02646838.2024.2324043 · Cited by 4
“An EPDS score > 10 was used to identify probable cases of postnatal depression (Ascaso Terrén et al., 2003; Levis et al., 2020; McCabe-Beane et al., 2016).”
Akinkugbe, A. A., Chiu, Y.-H. M., Kannan, S., Bergink, V., & Wright, R. J. (2024) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu16111771 · Cited by 3
“The global EPDS score (antepartum and 6 months postpartum) was categorized into ≥ 10 vs. 10, a threshold that has been used as a consensus cutoff for screening for a concern of clinical depression [36].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialViragova, M., Falconer, S., Chew, A. T. M., Edwards, A. D., Dazzan, P., & Nosarti, C. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.035 · Cited by 6
Psychometric Properties of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale Among Rural-Dwelling U.S. Women
Lau, E., Adams, Y. J., & Ghiaseddin, R. (2025) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840.2024.2434907 · Cited by 3
“Specifically, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), developed by Cox et al. (1987) is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal settings (Levis et al., 2020) and is often used to evaluate a woman’s risk of PPD and her need for further mental health care referral.”
Restless legs syndrome without insomnia and antenatal depressive symptoms
Tezuka, K., Ito, Y., & Nishi, D. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07173-3 · Cited by 3
Babah, O. A., Beňová, L., Larsson, E. C., Hanson, C., & Afolabi, B. B. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21942-x · Cited by 3
“The outcome of interest was occurrence of depression at two weeks postpartum defined as an EPDS score > 10 [33].”
Șipoș, R., Calugar, I., & Predescu, E. (2025) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12040396 · Cited by 3
“The EPDS is regarded as a reliable tool for identifying women at risk of postnatal depression and has been validated across multiple cultural contexts [72].”
Camacho, E. M., Shields, G., Eisner, E., Littlewood, E., Watson, K., Chew-Graham, C. A., McMillan, D., & Gilbody, S. M. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.04.009 · Cited by 3
Chen, H., Wang, D., Shen, J., Guo, B., Song, C. H., Ma, D., Yan, W. S., Liu, G., Chen, G., Ni, Y., et al. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07656-3 · Cited by 3
McConnell, M., Alsager, A., Fuchu, P., Sriprasad, S., Simoncini, L., Drainoni, M., Cordova-Ramos, E. G., Peña, M.-M., Madore, L., Kalluri, N. S., et al. (2025) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-025-05621-9 · Cited by 2
Despotis, A. M., Harrison, S., QUIGLEY, M. A., Alderdice, F. A., & Fellmeth, G. L. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.119707 · Cited by 3
Al-Abri, K., Sumri, H. H. A., Al-Azri, M. H., Yesodharan, D. K., & Kindi, R. M. A. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07793-9 · Cited by 4
Loussert, L., Sentilhes, L., Froeliger, A., Seco, A., Bonnet, M., Tebeka, S., Deneux‐Tharaux, C., & the TRAAP study group (2025) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.18289 · Cited by 3
Gyokova, E. H., Hristova-Atanasova, E., & Iskrov, G. G. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14145158 · Cited by 5
Macias‐Konstantopoulos, W., Moss, R. A., & Willis, B. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1656025 · Cited by 3
Karaca, F., Özkan, H., & Apay, S. E. (2026) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-08589-7 · Cited by 4
“Studies involving mixed populations, such as those addressing both pregnant and postpartum women, were included only if specific data for postpartum participants were provided [25, 26].”
Motofelea, N., Berceanu, C., Voita-Mekeres, F., Galiș, R., Szasz, F. A., Motofelea, A. C., Hoinoiu, T., Papavă, I., Olaru, F., Soava, D. V., et al. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15031135 · Cited by 4
“EPDS scores were analyzed both continuously and cate-gorically using two established cut-offs: EPDS ≥ 10 (possible depression; sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.84) and EPDS ≥ 13 (probable major depression; sensitivity = 0.66, specificity = 0.95) [25].”
InfluentialIdentification of Key Depressive Symptoms in Pregnant Women: Simulating Interventions
Hu, W., Chau, A. K. C., Wa, L. T., Fung, H. W., Lai, A. Y. K., Li, J. Z., & Wong, J. Y. (2026) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.70057 · Cited by 3
A systematic review on mindfulness-based immersive interventions in depressive disorders
Tan, P., Wu, Y., Chen, X., Chen, J., Guo, Z., Lu, X., Chen, J., & Zhang, H. (2026) · npj Mental Health Research · doi:10.1038/s44184-026-00205-6 · Cited by 3
“Thesewereevaluatedusingstandardized scalesincludingPatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9 67 ), Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS 68 ), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI 69 ), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 70 ), Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale-Short Form (BADS-SF 71 ),…”
Shah, D. B., Subedi, A., Prasad, J. N., Limbu, P. M., & Koirala, S. (2026) · Journal of Anesthesia · doi:10.1007/s00540-026-03730-y · Cited by 3
Zhou, F., Wang, L., ZHAO, Y., Hu, C., Meng, Y., Fan, J., Fraser, W. D., Baillargeon, J., Ouyang, F., Lye, S. J., et al. (2026) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2026.2672188 · Cited by 3
Lelièvre, J., Hompes, T., & Schoenmakers, B. (2021) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0127 · Cited by 3
“Screening for PND might improve outcome for mother and child but both routine screening programs and instruments are still subject of debate (5, 28, 30, 36).”
BackgroundCastro, J. C., Gigase, F. A. J., Molenaar, N. M., Ibroçi, E., Pérez-Rodríguez, M. M., Lieb, W., Janevic, T. M., de Witte, L. D., Bergink, V., & Rommel, A. (2023) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.12.020 · Cited by 3
Yisma, E., Walsh, S., Steen, M., Gray, R. J., Dennis, S., Gillam, M., Parange, N., & Jones, M. (2024) · Nursing Reports · doi:10.3390/nursrep14010007 · Cited by 4
Stefana, A., Cena, L., Trainini, A., Palumbo, G., Gigantesco, A., & Mirabella, F. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.05.018 · Cited by 4
An Integrated Approach to Address Perinatal Mental Health Within an Obstetrics Practice
Felten, C. L., Smith, K. S., & Aylesworth, M. B. (2024) · Journal of Midwifery & Women s Health · doi:10.1111/jmwh.13658 · Cited by 3
Kurbatfinski, S., Woo, J., Ntanda, H. N., Giesbrecht, G. F., & Letourneau, N. L. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children11081022 · Cited by 3
“A meta-analysis of 53 studies confirmed moderate-to-high sensitivity (0.81) and specificity (0.88) using a cut-off score of 11 in screening for major depression among pregnant and postpartum women [79].”
MethodInfluentialMason, G. M., Cohen, Z. L., Obeysekare, J., Saletin, J., & Sharkey, K. M. (2024) · SLEEP Advances · doi:10.1093/sleepadvances/zpae068 · Cited by 3
“…faster 6 weeks valence ratings of positive images specifically (controlling for 6 weeks TST: r (5 The cutoff threshold of 11 or higher for detection of major depression is based on a recent meta-analysis [30] suggesting that 11 maximizes both sensitivity and specificity for the assessment.”
Cost-Effectiveness of Perinatal Depression Screening: A Scoping Review
Xie, X., Lin, S., Xia, Y., & Liang, D. (2024) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-024-00922-z · Cited by 3
“Combining screening with subsequent interventions 95%, respectively, among pregnant or postpartum women [32].”
Rayport, Y. K., Morales, S., Shuffrey, L. C., Hockett, C. W., Ziegler, K. M., Rao, S. G., Fifer, W. P., Elliott, A., & Sania, A. (2024) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-024-05113-2 · Cited by 5
“An EPDS score ≥ 13 has been shown to be a sensitive and specific indicator of major depression in prior studies [34].”
ResultCarter, M. L., Paine, S., Sweeney, B., Taylor, J. E., & Signal, T. L. (2024) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae255 · Cited by 4
Postpartum Depression and Its Determinants: A Cross-Sectional Study
Kumari, P., & Basu, S. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.74044 · Cited by 5
“Furthermore, the scale is ineffective at identifying mothers who have pre-existing neurosis, phobias, or personality disorders [29,30].”
Grano, C., Zagaria, A., Spinoni, M., Solorzano, C. S., Cazzato, V., Kirk, E., & Preston, C. (2024) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101847 · Cited by 3
Kimmel, M., Tong, B., Devall, A. E., Björvang, R. D., Schuppe‐Koistinen, I., Engstrand, L., Fransson, E., Skalkidou, A., & Hugerth, L. W. (2025) · Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2025.100453 · Cited by 3
Mental Health Challenges in the Postpartum Period
Athanasiadi, A. (2025) · Obstetrics and gynecology. · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1008751 · Cited by 7
Roberts, E., Francesconi, M., & Flouri, E. (2025) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-025-02836-0 · Cited by 4
“The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was used to measure maternal depression at 32 weeks of pregnancy, with a higher score indicating a greater level of depression [29].”
Ou, C. H. K., Chen, G., Giesbrecht, G. F., Keys, E., Lebel, C. A., & Tomfohr‐Madsen, L. M. (2025) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1155/da/6663877 · Cited by 4
“We used a cutoff ≥ 13 to indicate possible depression [37].”
Yang, C., Na, X., Yang, H., Xi, M., Yang, Y., Yan, Y., Duan, S., Li, T., Szeto, I. M., & Zhao, A. (2025) · Clinical Nutrition ESPEN · doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.03.167 · Cited by 3
Eisner, E., Agass, R., Camacho, E. M., Falana, A., Hann, M., Ifezue, A., Lemetyinen, H., Myers, H., Stockton-Powdrell, C., Tower, C. L., et al. (2025) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01631-7 · Cited by 3
Ciolac, L., Nițu, D.-R., Bernad, E. S., Gluhovschi, A., Popa, D. I., Toc, T., Tudor, A., Maghiari, A. L., & Craina, M. L. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13080911 · Cited by 3
Maternal Perinatal Depression and Infant Behavioural Development: A Potential Cumulative Effect
Dou, L., Zhang, X., Lei, L., Ye, Y., Sun, S., Huang, Z., Zhang, A., He, H., Tao, H., Yu, C., et al. (2025) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.70055 · Cited by 4
Kreisinger, J., Kaňková, Š., Dlouhá, D., Ullmann, J., Nouzová, K., Hrbáčková, H., Schmiedová, L., & Takács, L. (2025) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-025-04146-6 · Cited by 4
Stress and depression risk in pregnancy associates with altered immune function
Mealy, G., Perez, S. H., Brennan, K., Callanan, S., Saldova, R., Groeger, D., van Sinderen, D., Cotter, P. D., Doyle, S., & McAuliffe, F. M. (2025) · The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/15622975.2025.2530000 · Cited by 3
“Scores of ≥10 but ≤12 indicate that depression is possibly present, while those with scores of ≥13 are likely to be suffering from a depressive illness (Cox et al. 1987; Levis et al. 2020).”
Exercise in Pregnancy and Risk of Postpartum Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Saccone, G., Buonomo, G., Ammendola, A., Bardi, L., Motta, M., Gragnano, E., & Locci, M. (2025) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.70010 · Cited by 7
Singla, D. R., Berenbaum, T. S., Silver, R. K., Vigod, S. N., Li, S., Anand, A., Shelly, S., Kiss, A., Lawson, A., Barker, L. C., et al. (2025) · Nature Mental Health · doi:10.1038/s44220-025-00509-0 · Cited by 3
“The EPDS 67 is a 10-item, Likert scale (range 0–30) that is highly sensitive to change 80 and is the most common measure of perinatal depressive symptoms in clinical and research settings 81 .”
Can the Healthy Start Risk Screen Predict Perinatal Depressive Symptoms among High-Risk Women?
Wilson, R. E., Campos, A., Sandhu, M., Sniffen, S., Jones, R. K., Tackett, H., Berry, E., & Louis‐Jacques, A. F. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9020180 · Cited by 3
Perinatal mental health issues: early recognition and management in primary care
Fisher, J. (2023) · Primary Health Care · doi:10.7748/phc.2023.e1796 · Cited by 3
Association between the continuum of care and postpartum depression among Angolan mothers
Aoki, A., Mochida, K., Balogun, O. O., Tomo, C. K., Tchicondingosse, L., Sapalalo, P., Aiga, H., Francisco, K. R., & Takehara, K. (2023) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.020 · Cited by 5
Postpartum depressive symptoms in women with female genital mutilation in Somalia
Özer, Ö., Keleş, E., Eker, H. H., Baydili, K. N., & Osman, M. M. (2023) · The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.1080/14767058.2023.2256445 · Cited by 3
“Most studies have used a cutoff point of 12 or 13 with high sensitivity and specificity to detect major depressive disorder in the postpartum period [19].”
BackgroundScreening and Follow-Up Care for Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders at a Rural Obstetric Clinic
Hughes, K., & Gianelis, K. A. (2023) · Nursing for Women s Health · doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2023.11.003 · Cited by 3
Handelzalts, J. E., Ohayon, S., Levy, S., & Peled, Y. (2024) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-023-02604-y · Cited by 5
“A score over 11 indicates symptoms of depression and a score over 13 indicates significant depressive symptoms [31].”
Donofry, S. D., Winograd, D., Kothari, D., Call, C. C., Magee, K. E., Jouppi, R. J., Kolko, R. P., & Levine, M. D. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21050622 · Cited by 4
“The presence and severity of depressive symptoms are measured using the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; [36,37]), which is a widely used instrument validated in pregnancy and the postpartum period [38,39].”
MethodKu, C. W., Tan, Y. B., Tan, S. I., Ku, C. O., Godfrey, K. M., Tan, K. H., Chan, S., Yang, L., Yap, F. K. P., Loy, S. L., et al. (2024) · Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore · doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2023283 · Cited by 4
“35,36 Size (weight optimisation with diet, physical activity and metabolic risk factor management) Body size optimisation involves weight monitoring coupled with personalised adjustments in dietary choices and physical activity regimens based on self-determined goals, and management of metabolic…”
Une intervention pour promouvoir des relations optimales et la santé des parents et des enfants
Letourneau, N. L., Kurbatfinski, S., Ross, K. M., Anis, L., Cole, S., & Hart, M. J. (2024) · Devenir · doi:10.3917/dev.242.0114 · Cited by 4
Sara, T. A., Nazifa, S. N., Mulk, S. T., Shakib, T. U., & Islam, M. N. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64850-2_37 · Cited by 3
Hsu, F. C., Chen, H., Wang, K.-Y., Ling, W.-L., & Chen, N.-C. (2024) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-024-01521-6 · Cited by 3
Denny, K. S., Doba, K., Storme, L., & Nandrino, J. (2024) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112910 · Cited by 6
Sleep disturbance as a marker of postpartum psychosis risk: a prospective actigraphy study
Petrosellini, C., Eriksson, S. H., Meyer, N., Antony, E., Protti, O., Donaldson, L., van Hees, V. T., Petrie, A., McQuillin, A., & Siassakos, D. M. (2025) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-07017-6 · Cited by 3
“It is validated for use both antenatally and postnatally [53, 54].”
Kim, O., Kim, B., Kim, S., Cho, E., Lee, H. Y., Cha, C., Bae, N., Kim, M., Lee, D. H., Chavarro, J. E., et al. (2023) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oemed-2022-108609 · Cited by 4
Do ask, but don’t screen: identifying peripartum depression in primary care
Patrick, K. L. (2022) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.221020 · Cited by 3
Depression screening in pregnancy and postpartum: Just do something?
Thombs, B. D., Rice, D. B., Markham, S., & Ziegelstein, R. C. (2023) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.02.005 · Cited by 3
Self-citationPacheco, J. P. G., Salum, G. A., & Hoffmann, M. S. (2023) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2016 · Cited by 3
Hurwitz, E. G., Butzin-Dozier, Z., Master, H., O’Neil, S. T., Walden, A., Holko, M., Patel, R. C., & Haendel, M. A. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.10.13.23296965 · Cited by 3
Wochenbett, Nachuntersuchungen
Ochsenbein‐Kölble, N., Krähenmann, F., Franz, M., & Kainer, F. (2024) · Springer Reference Medizin · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-63506-3_46 · Cited by 2
Andreasen, K., López, R. F., Wu, C. S., Linde, D. S., Oviedo‐Gutiérrez, A., Megías, J. L., Martín‐de‐las‐Heras, S., Zapata‐Calvente, A. L., Ankerstjerne, L. B. S., de‐León‐de‐León, S., et al. (2024) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.07.025 · Cited by 3
Nillni, Y. I., Schildroth, S., Yland, J. J., Brown, H. L., Wesselink, A. K., & Wise, L. A. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.01.088 · Cited by 2
Tang, L., Qing, H., Li, H., Liu, C., Wang, H., Sun, Y., Tan, Q., Wu, Y., Yang, X. Y., Lai, J., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1544753 · Cited by 2
Self-citationAnhedonia Symptoms and High Sensitivity C‐Reactive Protein (hs‐CRP) Several Years Postpartum
Nicoloro‐SantaBarbara, J. M., Carroll, J., Minissian, M., Kilpatrick, S. J., Merz, C. N. B., & Accortt, E. E. (2025) · American Journal of Reproductive Immunology · doi:10.1111/aji.70095 · Cited by 2
Williams, M., Iacob, E., Kausler, R., Simonsen, S. E., ADERIBIGBE, T. B., & Latendresse, G. (2025) · Women s Health · doi:10.1177/17455057251338368 · Cited by 2
Improving inpatient postpartum depression screening: results from a quality improvement initiative
Woofter, R. C., Hill, G., Wong, E., Bright, T. J., Bresee, C. J., Kilpatrick, S. J., & Accortt, E. E. (2025) · Archives of Women s Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-025-01591-0 · Cited by 2
“Notably, this study used lower positive depression screening score cutoffs than those often used in research (Kroenke et al. 2001; Levis et al. 2020), and thus, the proportion of patients with positive depression screenings in this study includes those with scores that researchers screenings: being…”
Prevalence of Maternal Depressive Symptoms in Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Fan, H. S. L., Masina, S., Chooniedass, R., Buono, K. D., & Tarrant, M. (2025) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2025.102940 · Cited by 2
Ohene‐Agyei, P., Gamble, G. D., Samuel, D., Oladimeji, O. I., Liu, Q., Harding, J. E., & Crowther, C. A. (2025) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.70666 · Cited by 2
“This cut-off has been reported to have the highest specificity in the perinatal period (Levis et al. 2020).”
Bull, C. F., Kisely, S. R., Hutchinson, D. M., Hewlett, N., & Reid, N. (2025) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112816 · Cited by 2
Perinatal Depression Screening in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Abe, N., Austin-Page, L., Chang, E. L., Lazo-Kim, A. J., Remnick, A., & Nguyen, M. B. (2025) · Pediatric Emergency Care · doi:10.1097/pec.0000000000003452 · Cited by 2
Effects of maternal depression and self-efficacy during pregnancy on postpartum bonding
Bergmann, R., Märthesheimer, S., Hagenbeck, C., Balan, P., Fehm, T. N., & Schaal, N. K. (2025) · Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology · doi:10.1080/02646838.2025.2541078 · Cited by 2
Šebela, A., Hořáková, A., Němcová, H., Kuklová, M., Nosková, E., Švancer, P., Byatt, N., Janovska, A., & Hrdlickova, K. (2025) · Psychosocial Intervention · doi:10.5093/pi2025a12 · Cited by 2
Zhu, Y., Yin, X., & Gong, Y. (2025) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2025.120217 · Cited by 2
Wu, W., & Yu, P. (2025) · International Journal of Nursing Practice · doi:10.1111/ijn.70059 · Cited by 2
Brun, A., Ruchat, S.-M., Chaput‐Langlois, S., Booij, L., Giac, R., Séguin, K., Bernier, A., Morisset, A., Boucoiran, I., Vaillancourt, C., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22101538 · Cited by 2
“Total scores range from 0 to 30, with a cutoff score of 13 and above commonly used to indicate clinically relevant levels of depressive symptom [39].”
Engage & connect psychotherapy improves social reward responsivity and reduces postpartum depression
Solomonov, N., Bein, O., Himelfarb, A., Schier, M. M., Mir, Z., Brown, S., McDarby, M., Osborne, L. M., Gunning, F. M., Turchioe, M. R., et al. (2025) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2025.2569046 · Cited by 2
“Depression severity, the primary outcome was measured with the Edin-burgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; Cox et al., 1987; Levis et al., 2020).”
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
