CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screening tools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: a meta-research review

Levis, Brooke, Yan, Xin Wei, He, Chen, Sun, Ying, Benedetti, Andrea, Thombs, Brett D.·2019·BMC Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6PMC PMC6427845
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study selection process
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study selection processCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Number of meta-analyses per classification category and whether abstracts described the depression classification methods pooled
Fig. 2 Number of meta-analyses per classification category and whether abstracts described the depression classification methods pooledCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Jones KD. The unstructured clinical interview. J Couns Dev. 2010;88:220–6. · DOI
  2. Robins LN, Helzer JE, Croughan J, Ratcliff KS. National Institute of Mental Health diagnostic interview schedule: its history, characteristics, and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;38:381–9. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Grove WM, Andreasen NC, McDonald-Scott P, Keller MB, Shapiro RW. Reliability studies of psychiatric diagnosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;38:408–13. · DOI
  4. Basco MR. Is there a place for research diagnostic methods in clinic settings? In Oldham JM & Riba MD (Eds.). Standardized Evaluation in Clinical Practice. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Rev Psychiatry 2003;22:1–28.
  5. Miller PR. Inpatient diagnostic assessments: 2. Interrater reliability and outcomes of structured vs. unstructured interviews. Psychiatry Res. 2001;105:265–71. · DOI
  6. Wittchen H-U. Reliability and validity studies of the WHO-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1994;28:57–84. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Pocklington C, Gilbody S, Manea L, McMillan D. The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31:837–57. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–6. · DOI
  9. Paulson JF, Bazemore SD. Prenatal and postpartum depression in fathers and its association with maternal depression: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303:1961–9. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Rotenstein LS, Ramos MA, Torre M, et al. Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316:2214–36. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dal-Ré R, Castell MV, García-Puig J. If the results of an article are noteworthy, read the entire article; do not rely on the abstract alone. Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215:454–7. · DOI
  12. Read MEDLINE abstracts with a pinch of salt. Lancet. 2006;368:1394.
  13. Mathers CD, Lopez AD, Murray CJL. The burden of disease and mortality by condition: data, methods, and results for 2001. In: Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, CJL M, editors. Global burden of disease and risk factors. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank Group; 2006.
  14. Ngo VK, Rubinstein A, Ganju V, et al. Grand challenges: integrating mental health care into the non-communicable disease agenda. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001443. · DOI
  15. Cavestro JM, Rocha FL. Prevalência de depressão entre estudantes universitários. J Bras Psiquiatria. 2006;55:264–7. · DOI
  16. Altmetric. Top Articles: 2017. https://www.altmetric.com/top100/2017/#list&journal=JAMA%3A%20Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association . Accessed 3 Sept 2018.
  17. Baker K, Sen S. Healing medicine’s future: prioritizing physician trainee mental health. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18:604–13. · DOI
  18. Kelly MJ, Dunstan FD, Lloyd K, Fone DL. Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8:10. · DOI
  19. Shankman SA, Funkhouser CJ, Klein DN, et al. Reliability and validity of severity dimensions of psychopathology assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018;27:e1590. · DOI
  20. Semler G, Wittchen HU, Joschke K, et al. Test-retest reliability of a standardized psychiatric interview (DIS/CIDI). Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1987;236:214–22. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Levis, B., Yan, X. W., He, C., Sun, Y., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D.
Venue
BMC Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-03-21
Volume
17
Issue
1
ISSN
1741-7015
DOI
10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6
PMC
PMC6427845
Cited by
117
References
18
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review