Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses.
Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1159/000509283
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
22.8
通讯作者：
DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wu Y;Levis B;Ioannidis JPA;Benedetti A;Thombs BD;DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration
之前的三个个体参与者数据荟萃分析(IPDMA)报告，与DSM结构化临床访谈(SCID)相比，替代参考标准，主要是综合国际诊断访谈(CIDI)和迷你国际神经精神病学访谈(MINI)，倾向于对严重抑郁状态进行错误分类，控制抑郁症状的严重程度。然而，结果有很大的不精确性。比较基于SCID、CIDI和MINI的重度抑郁症分类的几率。我们纳入并标准化了来自三个IPDMA数据库的数据。对于每个IPDMA，我们分别拟合二项广义线性混合模型来比较主要抑郁分类的调整优势比(AORS)，控制抑郁症状严重程度和参与者特征，以及访谈和症状严重程度之间的交互作用。接下来，我们使用德西蒙尼-莱尔德随机效应荟萃分析来综合结果。总共纳入了212项研究中的69,405名参与者(7,574名(11%)患有严重抑郁症)。控制症状严重程度和参与者特征，MINI(74项研究；25,749名参与者)对严重抑郁症的分类比SCID(108项研究；21,953名参与者；AOR[95%CI]=1.46[1.11-1.92])更频繁。CIDI(30项研究；21,703名参与者)和SCID的分类优势总体上没有差异(AOR[95%CI]=1.19[0.79，1.75])，但随着筛查分数的增加，CIDI的AOR增加幅度小于SCID(交互作用AOR[95%CI]=0.64[0.52-0.80])。与SCID相比，迷你型更常被归类为重度抑郁症。CIDI对抑郁症进行分类的几率随着症状级别的增加而增加较少。解释使用诊断性访谈对抑郁症进行分类的研究应该考虑访谈的特点。
Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was important imprecision in results. To compare odds of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. We included and standardized data from three IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for depression symptom severity and participant characteristics; and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR [95% CI] = 1.46 [1.11–1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and SCID did not differ overall (aOR [95% CI] =1.19 [0.79, 1.75]), but as screening scores increased, aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR [95% CI] = 0.64 [0.52–0.80]). Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. Odds of depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider interview characteristics.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
22.8
作者：
He, Chen;Levis, Brooke;Benedetti, Andrea
通讯作者：
Benedetti, Andrea
DOI：
10.1192/bjp.2018.54
发表时间：
2018-06
期刊：
The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science
影响因子：
--
作者：
Levis B;Benedetti A;Riehm KE;Saadat N;Levis AW;Azar M;Rice DB;Chiovitti MJ;Sanchez TA;Cuijpers P;Gilbody S;Ioannidis JPA;Kloda LA;McMillan D;Patten SB;Shrier I;Steele RJ;Ziegelstein RC;Akena DH;Arroll B;Ayalon L;Baradaran HR;Baron M;Beraldi A;Bombardier CH;Butterworth P;Carter G;Chagas MH;Chan JCN;Cholera R;Chowdhary N;Clover K;Conwell Y;de Man-van Ginkel JM;Delgadillo J;Fann JR;Fischer FH;Fischler B;Fung D;Gelaye B;Goodyear-Smith F;Greeno CG;Hall BJ;Hambridge J;Harrison PA;Hegerl U;Hides L;Hobfoll SE;Hudson M;Hyphantis T;Inagaki M;Ismail K;Jetté N;Khamseh ME;Kiely KM;Lamers F;Liu SI;Lotrakul M;Loureiro SR;Löwe B;Marsh L;McGuire A;Mohd Sidik S;Munhoz TN;Muramatsu K;Osório FL;Patel V;Pence BW;Persoons P;Picardi A;Rooney AG;Santos IS;Shaaban J;Sidebottom A;Simning A;Stafford L;Sung S;Tan PLL;Turner A;van der Feltz-Cornelis CM;van Weert HC;Vöhringer PA;White J;Whooley MA;Winkley K;Yamada M;Zhang Y;Thombs BD
通讯作者：
Thombs BD
影响因子：
2
作者：
Gelaye B;Williams MA;Lemma S;Deyessa N;Bahretibeb Y;Shibre T;Wondimagegn D;Lemenih A;Fann JR;Stoep AV;Zhou XH
通讯作者：
Zhou XH
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Higgins, JPT;Thompson, SG;Altman, DG
通讯作者：
Altman, DG
影响因子：
7.8
作者：
Lecrubier, Y;Sheehan, DV;Dunbar, GC
通讯作者：
Dunbar, GC