Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024
Individual patient data meta-analysis estimates the minimal detectable change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
González-Domínguez Nadia P, Wu Yin, Fan Suiqiong, Levis Brooke, Sun Ying, Gilbody Simon, Ioannidis John P A, Harel Daphna, Vigod Simone N, Markham Sarah, Ziegelstein Roy C, Cuijpers Pim, Patten Scott B, Boruff Jill T, Thombs Brett D, Benedetti Andrea, DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) GDS Author Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To use individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and to examine whether MDC may differ based on participant characteristics and study-level variables.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting.
RESULTS: 5876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥80-year-olds and <80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI -0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated.
CONCLUSION: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting.
RESULTS: 5876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥80-year-olds and <80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI -0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated.
CONCLUSION: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates.