Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis
Abstract Objectives Selectively reported results from only well‐performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta‐analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale...
| Asıl Yazarlar: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Materyal Türü: | Makale |
| Dil: | English |
| Baskı/Yayın Bilgisi: |
Wiley
2021-09-01
|
| Seri Bilgileri: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research |
| Konular: | |
| Online Erişim: | https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1873 |
| _version_ | 1828386308674813952 |
|---|---|
| author | Dipika Neupane Brooke Levis Parash M. Bhandari Brett D. Thombs Andrea Benedetti DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration |
| author_facet | Dipika Neupane Brooke Levis Parash M. Bhandari Brett D. Thombs Andrea Benedetti DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration |
| author_sort | Dipika Neupane |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives Selectively reported results from only well‐performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta‐analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs. Methods We conducted bivariate random effects meta‐analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs. Results For the PHQ‐9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ‐9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10. Conclusion Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ‐9 than EPDS. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T05:36:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-abfadf28173f4d1d813924f119f0975f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1049-8931 1557-0657 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T05:36:20Z |
| publishDate | 2021-09-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-abfadf28173f4d1d813924f119f0975f2022-12-22T02:00:25ZengWileyInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research1049-89311557-06572021-09-01303n/an/a10.1002/mpr.1873Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysisDipika Neupane0Brooke Levis1Parash M. Bhandari2Brett D. Thombs3Andrea Benedetti4DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) CollaborationLady Davis Institute for Medical Research Jewish General Hospital Montréal Québec CanadaLady Davis Institute for Medical Research Jewish General Hospital Montréal Québec CanadaLady Davis Institute for Medical Research Jewish General Hospital Montréal Québec CanadaLady Davis Institute for Medical Research Jewish General Hospital Montréal Québec CanadaDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health McGill University Montréal Québec CanadaAbstract Objectives Selectively reported results from only well‐performing cutoffs in diagnostic accuracy studies may bias estimates in meta‐analyses. We investigated cutoff reporting patterns for the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9; standard cutoff 10) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; no standard cutoff, commonly used 10–13) and compared accuracy estimates based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs. Methods We conducted bivariate random effects meta‐analyses using individual participant data to compare accuracy from published versus all cutoffs. Results For the PHQ‐9 (30 studies, N = 11,773), published results underestimated sensitivity for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: −0.06) and overestimated for cutoffs above 10 (median difference: 0.07). EPDS (19 studies, N = 3637) sensitivity estimates from published results were similar for cutoffs below 10 (median difference: 0.00) but higher for cutoffs above 13 (median difference: 0.14). Specificity estimates from published and all cutoffs were similar for both tools. The mean cutoff of all reported cutoffs in PHQ‐9 studies with optimal cutoff below 10 was 8.8 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs above 10. Mean for EPDS studies with optimal cutoffs below 10 was 9.9 compared to 11.8 for those with optimal cutoffs greater than 10. Conclusion Selective cutoff reporting was more pronounced for the PHQ‐9 than EPDS.https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1873diagnostic test accuracyindividual participant data meta‐analysismeta‐analysispublication biasselective cutoff reporting |
| spellingShingle | Dipika Neupane Brooke Levis Parash M. Bhandari Brett D. Thombs Andrea Benedetti DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research diagnostic test accuracy individual participant data meta‐analysis meta‐analysis publication bias selective cutoff reporting |
| title | Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis |
| title_full | Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis |
| title_fullStr | Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis |
| title_short | Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta‐analysis |
| title_sort | selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the patient health questionnaire 9 and edinburgh postnatal depression scale comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta analysis |
| topic | diagnostic test accuracy individual participant data meta‐analysis meta‐analysis publication bias selective cutoff reporting |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1873 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dipikaneupane selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis AT brookelevis selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis AT parashmbhandari selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis AT brettdthombs selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis AT andreabenedetti selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis AT depressionscreeningdatadepressdcollaboration selectivecutoffreportinginstudiesoftheaccuracyofthepatienthealthquestionnaire9andedinburghpostnataldepressionscalecomparisonofresultsbasedonpublishedcutoffsversusallcutoffsusingindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis |