+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis



Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis



Plos One 11(5): E0155431



We aimed to collect and meta-analyse the existing evidence regarding the performance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) for detecting depression in general population and primary care settings. Systematic literature search in PubMed and PsychINFO. Eligible studies were: a) validation studies of screening questionnaires with information on the accuracy of the CES-D; b) samples from general populations or primary care settings; c) standardized diagnostic interviews following standard classification systems used as gold standard; and d) English or Spanish language of publication. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio were estimated for several cut-off points using bivariate mixed effects models for each threshold. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated with Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects models; area under the curve was calculated. Quality of the studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Causes of heterogeneity were evaluated with the Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects model including each covariate at a time. 28 studies (10,617 participants) met eligibility criteria. The median prevalence of Major Depression was 8.8% (IQ range from 3.8% to 12.6%). The overall area under the curve was 0.87. At the cut-off 16, sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92), specificity 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.75), and DOR 16.2 (95% CI: 10.49-25.10). Better trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity were observed (Sensitivity = 0.83, Specificity = 0.78, diagnostic odds ratio = 16.64) for cut-off 20. None of the variables assessed as possible sources of heterogeneity was found to be statistically significant. The CES-D has acceptable screening accuracy in the general population or primary care settings, but it should not be used as an isolated diagnostic measure of depression. Depending on the test objectives, the cut-off 20 may be more adequate than the value of 16, which is typically recommended.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 058812648

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27182821


Related references

Screening for depression in a hepatitis C population: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Journal of Advanced Nursing 40(3): 361-369, 2002

Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale--Revised (CESD-R): pragmatic depression assessment in the general population. Psychiatry Research 186(1): 128-132, 2011

A screening tool for depression in the elderly in the general population: the usefulness of Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Tijdschrift Voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie 25(3): 95-103, 1994

The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale a self report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement: 385-401, 1977

eHealth interventions for the prevention of depression and anxiety in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmc Psychiatry 17(1): 310, 2018

Screening for depression in elderly primary care patients. A comparison of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale and the Geriatric Depression Scale. Archives of Internal Medicine 157(4): 449-454, 1997

Relation of C-reactive protein to stroke, cognitive disorders, and depression in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. Neurology 4(6): 371-380, 2005

Screening for Depression among Community-dwelling Elders: Usefulness of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 38(5): 483-485, 2016

Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Stroke 17(2): 241-245, 1986

Post stroke depression the utility of the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale as a screening instrument. Neurology 38(3 SUPPL 1): 319, 1988

The sensitivity and specificity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in screening for post-stroke depression. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 18(2): 169-181, 1988

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression among community-residing older adults. Psychology and Aging 12(2): 277-287, 1997

The risk of developing major depression among individuals with subthreshold depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Psychological Medicine 2018: 1-11, 2018

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies on major depression and BDNF levels: implications for the role of neuroplasticity in depression. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 11(8): 1169-1180, 2008

The prevalence of depression in general hospital inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of interview-based studies. Psychological Medicine 48(14): 2285-2298, 2018