Login / Signup

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Yin WuBrooke LevisFederico M DarayJohn P A IoannidisScott B PattenPim CuijpersRoy C ZiegelsteinSimon GilbodyFelix H FischerSuiqiong FanYing SunChen HeAnkur KrishnanDipika NeupaneParash Mani BhandariZelalem NegeriKira E RiehmDanielle B RiceMarleine AzarXin Wei YanMahrukh ImranMatthew J ChiovittiJill T BoruffDean McMillanLorie A KlodaSarah MarkhamMelissa HenryZahinoor IsmailCarmen G LoiselleNicholas D MitchellSamir Al-AdawiKevin R BeckAnna BeraldiCharles N BernsteinBirgitte BoyeNatalie Büel-DrabeAdomas BuneviciusCeyhun CanGregory CarterChih-Ken ChenGary CheungKerrie CloverRonán M ConroyGema Costa-RequenaDaniel CukorEli DabscheckJennifer De SouzaMarina DowningAnthony FeinsteinPanagiotis P FerentinosAlastair J FlintPamela GallagherMilena GandyLuigi GrassiMartin HärterAsuncion HernandoMelinda L JacksonJosef JeneweinNathalie JettéMiguel JuliãoMarie KjærgaardSebastian KöhlerHans-Helmut KönigLalit K R KrishnaYu LeeMargrit LöbnerWim L LoosmanAnthony W LoveBernd LöweUlrik F MaltRuth Ann MarrieLoreto MassardoYutaka MatsuokaAnja MehnertIoannis MichopoulosLaurent MiseryChristian J NelsonChong Guan NgMeaghan L O'DonnellSuzanne J O'RourkeAhmet ÖztürkAlexander PabstJulie A PascoJurate PeceliunieneLuis PintorJennie L PonsfordFederico PulidoTerence J QuinnSilje E RemeKatrin ReuterSteffi G Riedel-HellerAlasdair G RooneyRoberto Sánchez-GonzálezRebecca M SaracinoMelanie P J SchellekensMartin SchererAndrea BenedettiBrett D Thombsnull Et Al
Published in: Psychological assessment (2023)
The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Keyphrases
  • systematic review
  • machine learning
  • randomized controlled trial
  • emergency department
  • electronic health record
  • big data
  • case control
  • adverse drug
  • drug induced