Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMJ Open ; 5(10): e009742, 2015 Oct 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26486977

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Studies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools often used data-driven methods to select optimal cut-offs. Typically, these studies report results from a small range of cut-off points around whatever cut-off score is identified as most accurate. When published data are combined in meta-analyses, estimates of accuracy for different cut-off points may be based on data from different studies, rather than data from all studies for each cut-off point. Thus, traditional meta-analyses may exaggerate accuracy estimates. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses synthesise data from all studies for each cut-off score to obtain accuracy estimates. The 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is commonly recommended for depression screening in the perinatal period. The primary objective of this IPD meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the EPDS to detect major depression among women during pregnancy and in the postpartum period across all potentially relevant cut-off scores, accounting for patient factors that may influence accuracy (age, pregnancy vs postpartum). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that include a diagnosis of major depression based on a validated structured or semistructured clinical interview administered within 2 weeks of (before or after) the administration of the EPDS will be included. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted for the full range of plausible cut-off values. Analyses will evaluate data from pregnancy and the postpartum period separately, as well as combining data from all women in a single model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will include journal articles and presentations to policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015024785.


Assuntos
Depressão Pós-Parto/diagnóstico , Transtorno Depressivo Maior/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Complicações na Gravidez/diagnóstico , Projetos de Pesquisa , Feminino , Humanos , Saúde Mental , Metanálise como Assunto , Gravidez , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Autorrelato , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
2.
J Psychosom Res ; 76(6): 433-46, 2014 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24840137

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Depressão/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento , Complicações na Gravidez/diagnóstico , Adulto , Depressão/epidemiologia , Depressão/prevenção & controle , Depressão Pós-Parto/diagnóstico , Feminino , Humanos , Variações Dependentes do Observador , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Assistência Perinatal/métodos , Assistência Perinatal/normas , Assistência Perinatal/tendências , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Gravidez , Complicações na Gravidez/epidemiologia , Complicações na Gravidez/prevenção & controle
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA