Cited by 443Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis

Open access
Gilbody, S., Sheldon, T., House, A.·2008·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression. METHODS: We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques. RESULTS: Sixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20). INTERPRETATION: If used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.070281

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for Depression: Systematic Evidence Review Number 6. Rockville (MD): The Agency; 2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbody, S., Sheldon, T., & House, A.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2008-04-08
Volume
178
Issue
8
Pages
997-1003
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2139057022
Cited by
443
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 41
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
depression screening, case finding, depression detection, depression treatment, antidepressant prescribing, screening questionnaire, primary care, quality of care
MeSH terms
Depression, Hospitals, General, Humans, Mass Screening, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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