Depression Screening and Health Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Depression screening among children and adolescents is controversial. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force first recommended routine depression screening for adolescents, and this recommendation was reiterated in 2016. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified in the original 2009 systematic review or in an updated review through February 2015. The objective of this systematic review was to provide a current evaluation to determine whether there is evidence from RCTs that depression screening in childhood and adolescence improves depression outcomes. METHOD: Data sources included the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS databases searched February 2, 2017. Eligible studies had to be RCTs that compared depression outcomes between children or adolescents aged 6 to 18 years who underwent depression screening and those who did not. RESULTS: Of 552 unique title/abstracts, none received full-text review. No RCTs that investigated the effects of screening on depression outcomes in children or adolescents were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is no direct RCT evidence that supports depression screening among children and adolescents. Groups that consider recommending screening should carefully consider potential harms, as well as the use of scarce health resources, that would occur with the implementation of screening programs.

Depression screening and patient outcomes in pregnancy or postpartum: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines disagree on whether health care professionals should screen women for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether depression screening improves depression outcomes among women during pregnancy or the postpartum period. METHODS: Searches included the CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases through April 1, 2013; manual journal searches; reference list reviews; citation tracking of included articles; and trial registry reviews. RCTs in any language that compared depression outcomes between women during pregnancy or postpartum randomized to undergo depression screening versus women not screened were eligible. RESULTS: There were 9,242 unique titles/abstracts and 15 full-text articles reviewed. Only 1 RCT of screening postpartum was included, but none during pregnancy. The eligible postpartum study evaluated screening in mothers in Hong Kong with 2-month-old babies (N=462) and reported a standardized mean difference for symptoms of depression at 6 months postpartum of 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.15 to 0.52, P<0.001). Standardized mean difference per 44 additional women treated in the intervention trial arm compared to the non-screening arm was approximately 1.8. Risk of bias was high, however, because the status of outcome measures was changed post-hoc and because the reported effect size per woman treated was 6-7 times the effect sizes reported in comparable depression care interventions. CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence from any well-designed and conducted RCT that screening for depression would benefit women in pregnancy or postpartum. Existing guidelines that recommend depression screening during pregnancy or postpartum should be re-considered.

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available. This recommendation, however, is based on evidence from depression management programs conducted with patients already identified as depressed, even though screening is intended to identify depressed patients not already recognized or treated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether there is evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that depression screening benefits patients in primary care, using an explicit definition of screening. METHODS: We re-evaluated RCTs included in the 2009 USPSTF evidence review on depression screening, including only trials that compared depression outcomes between screened and non-screened patients and met the following three criteria: determined patient eligibility and randomized prior to screening; excluded patients already diagnosed with a recent episode of depression or already being treated for depression; and provided the same level of depression treatment services to patients identified as depressed in the screening and non-screening trial arms. We also reviewed studies included in a recent Cochrane systematic review, but not the USPSTF review; conducted a focused search to update the USPSTF review; and reviewed trial registries. RESULTS: Of the nine RCTs included in the USPSTF review, four fulfilled none of three criteria for a test of depression screening, four fulfilled one of three criteria, and one fulfilled two of three criteria. There were two additional RCTs included only in the Cochrane review, and each fulfilled one of three criteria. No eligible RCTs were found via the updated review. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF recommendation to screen adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available is not supported by evidence from any RCTs that are directly relevant to the recommendation. The USPSTF should re-evaluate this recommendation. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/14 REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (#CRD42013004276).

Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Several practice guidelines recommend routine screening for psychological distress in cancer care. The objective was to evaluate the effect of screening cancer patients for psychological distress by assessing the (1) effectiveness of interventions to reduce distress among patients identified as distressed; and (2) effects of screening for distress on distress outcomes. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched through April 6, 2011 with manual searches of 45 relevant journals, reference list review, citation tracking of included articles, and trial registry reviews through June 30, 2012. Articles in any language on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared treatment for patients with psychological distress to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (2) assessed the effect of screening on psychological distress in a RCT. RESULTS: There were 14 eligible RCTs for treatment of distress, and 1 RCT on the effects of screening on patient distress. Pharmacological, psychotherapy and collaborative care interventions generally reduced distress with small to moderate effects. One study investigated effects of screening for distress on psychological outcomes, and it found no improvement. CONCLUSION: Treatment studies reported modest improvement in distress symptoms, but only a single eligible study was found on the effects of screening cancer patients for distress, and distress did not improve in screened patients versus those receiving usual care. Because of the lack of evidence of beneficial effects of screening cancer patients for distress, it is premature to recommend or mandate implementation of routine screening.

Depression screening and mental health outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression is an important cause of disability among children and adolescents. Depression screening is one possible method for managing depression, and screening programs have been initiated in some school and medical settings. However, in 2005, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the United Kingdom National Institute of Clinical Excellence did not recommend depression screening among children and adolescents. By contrast, in 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all adolescents, but not younger children, be screened for depression in medical settings with integrated depression management services, although no trials of screening were identified. The objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate in children and adolescents the accuracy of depression screening tools; depression treatment efficacy; whether depression screening improves depression outcomes; and potential harms related to depression interventions and screening. METHODS/DESIGN: Data sources will include the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, LILACS and Web of Science, supplemented by reference harvesting of eligible articles, relevant systematic reviews, relevant guidelines and recommendations, and selected journals, and by searches for unpublished studies. Eligible studies will report data for children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. Eligible diagnostic accuracy studies must compare a depression screening tool to a validated diagnostic interview for major depressive disorder and report diagnostic accuracy data. Eligible treatment studies must be randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, psychotherapeutic, or other depression treatments commonly available for children and adolescents in pediatric, primary-care, and family medicine settings. Eligible screening studies must be randomized controlled trials that compare depression outcomes between children or adolescents who underwent depression screening versus those who did not. Studies of harms will include randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluate harms from depression screening or treatment. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article review. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. Two investigators will independently extract the data, with discrepancies resolved via consensus. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will determine whether there is sufficient evidence of benefits in excess of harms and costs to support screening for depression in childhood and adolescence.

Depression screening and patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes. METHODS: Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT. RESULTS: There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.

Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.

CONTEXT: Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We selected the 3 most recent meta-analyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each meta-analysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs. RESULTS: Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 meta-analyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, author-industry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. CONCLUSION: Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.

Prevalence of emotional distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients.

GOALS OF WORK: Distress is defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological, social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer. We investigated the prevalence and associated symptoms of distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and July 2007, 98 newly diagnosed lung cancer patients completed an assessment. The Distress Thermometer (DT) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were used as screening tools. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty (51%) patients reported clinically significant distress (>or=4) on the DT. Of those, 26 (52%) patients reported high levels of depression, nervousness, or both on ESAS. The remaining 24 (48%) patients had elevated levels of distress but no significant depression or nervousness. A correlation between the DT and the total ESAS score was observed (Pearson correlation = 0.46). The ten items of the ESAS together explained 46% of the variability in DT scores. The depression and nervousness ESAS items were significant predictors of DT score (p < 0.01 for both items). However, once the two psychosocial items, depression and nervousness, were removed from the total ESAS score, leaving only physical symptoms and the sleeplessness item, the predictive power of the model decreased to R(2) = 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of distress in lung cancer patients is high. The DT appears to discriminate between physical and emotional distress. This easily measured score may determine which patients require further intervention for emotional distress.