Cited by 187Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major Depression

Which instruments to support diagnosis of depression have sufficient accuracy? A systematic review

Pettersson, Agneta, Boström, Kristina Bengtsson, Gustavsson, Petter, Ekselius, Lisa·2015·Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Instruments are frequently used in case finding, diagnosis and severity grading of major depression, but the evidence supporting their utility is weak. AIM: To systematically review the specificity and sensitivity of instruments used to diagnose and grade the severity of depression. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched until April 2014. Fifty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS. The average sensitivity and specificity of each instrument was estimated with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics analyses and the confidence in the estimates was evaluated using GRADE. Minimum acceptable sensitivity/specificity, with structured interview as the reference, was 80%/80% for structured interviews and 80%/70% for case-finding instruments. The minimum acceptable standard for severity measures was a correlation of 0.7 with DSM-IV classification. RESULTS: Twenty instruments were investigated. The average sensitivity/specificity was 85%/92% for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Axis-I Disorders (SCID-I), 95%/84% for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), < 70%/85% for the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD), 88%/78% for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) with a cut-off score of 10, 69%/95% for PHQ-9 as a diagnostic algorithm and 70%/83% for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) with a cut-off score of 7. The confidence in the estimates for the other instruments was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Only the SCID-I, MINI and PHQ-9 with a cut-off score of 10 fulfilled the minimum criteria for sensitivity and specificity. The use of the PRIME-MD and HADS is not supported by current evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/08039488.2015.1008568

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pettersson, A., Boström, K. B., Gustavsson, P., & Ekselius, L.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Pettersson, Agneta
Venue
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
69
Issue
7
Pages
497-508
ISSN
  • 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-9488
  • 1502-4725
OpenAlex
W1995398953
Cited by
187
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
depression diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, major depressive disorder, depression severity assessment, structured interviews, SCID-I, MINI, PHQ-9, PRIME-MD, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, case finding, DSM-IV classification
MeSH terms
Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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