Key result
Study protocol outlines planned individual patient data meta-analysis of HADS-D accuracy for major depression.
Why the study?
Does the HADS-D accurately detect major depression in medically ill adults across all potentially relevant cut-off scores?
Systematic Review
Does the HADS-D accurately detect major depression in medically ill adults across all potentially relevant cut-off scores?
This protocol outlines a planned individual patient data meta-analysis aiming to provide unbiased estimates of HADS-D diagnostic accuracy and to develop a predictive algorithm for clinical use.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol for IPD meta-analysis of HADS-D accuracy across cut-offs; extends prior work by enabling patient-level predictive algorithms.
INTRODUCTION: The Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) has been recommended for depression screening in medically ill patients. Many existing HADS-D studies have used exploratory methods to select optimal cut-offs. Often, these studies report results from a small range of cut-off thresholds; cut-offs with more favourable accuracy results are more likely to be reported than others with worse accuracy estimates. When published data are combined in meta-analyses, selective reporting may generate biased summary estimates. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses can address this problem by estimating accuracy with data from all studies for all relevant cut-off scores. In addition, a predictive algorithm can be generated to estimate the probability that a patient has depression based on a HADS-D score and clinical characteristics rather than dichotomous screening classification alone. The primary objectives of our IPD meta-analyses are to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the HADS-D to detect major depression among adults across all potentially relevant cut-off scores and to generate a predictive algorithm for individual patients. We are already aware of over 100 eligible studies, and more may be identified with our comprehensive search. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sources will include MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligible studies will have datasets where patients are assessed for major depression based on a validated structured or semistructured clinical interview and complete the HADS-D within 2 weeks (before or after). Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted for the full range of plausible cut-off values, and a predictive algorithm for individual patients will be generated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thombs et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Major depressive disorder in medically ill patients. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) vs. Validated structured or semistructured clinical interview was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). This is a study protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the HADS-D for major depression; no results are reported.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: