Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Purpose To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases w...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2023-05, Vol.307 (5), p.1331-1345 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1345 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1331 |
container_title | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics |
container_volume | 307 |
creator | Park, Seong-Hi Kim, Jeung-Im |
description | Purpose
To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases was conducted using the following keywords: depression, perinatal-related terms, and EPDS. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in diagnostic studies.
Results
The search identified 823 articles, of which 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 1831 pregnant women from nine studies, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively, with summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve of 0.90. In 515 postpartum women from six studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sROC were 0.79, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. We then compared the EPDS with other tools using three or more studies. The sROC curve of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was 0.74, which was lower than that (0.86) of the EPDS. The sROC curve of the Beck Depression Inventory and the ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was 0.91, similar to that of the EPDS (0.90 and 0.87). However, in comparison with the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (0.98), the sROC curve of the EPDS was 0.54.
Conclusion
As a tool specialized for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women, the EPDS showed excellent performance. Thus, the EPDS can be used in preference to other tools to screen for depression in perinatal women at a primary care setting or a midwifery center. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2649998665</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2802174286</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-1479e5ec2101abf0d52be45e22360ba6fe4af2413ae796e097208d9752c316c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQRiNERUvhBVggS2zYBMaO4yTsUFV-pEp00a6jSTK5dZXYwePc6r5VHxH33gIVC1Yea8732dLJsjcSPkiA6iMDaNA5KJWDKVWZw7PsROoiXSspnz-Zj7OXzLcAUtW1eZEdF6WWRlf1SXZ_GWiwfbRbEluc7GDjTvhRxBsS54N13Ro2N2LxHB1GnMRASyBm653gHicS6AbhEx1E9H5iMfqQNoHIWbd5ilsn0rxx6OI-9NC5YIjrLO78TO6TQME7jjRjtL0ItLV0tydnipijw2nHll9lRyNOTK8fz9Ps-sv51dm3_OLH1-9nny_yXmsZc6mrhkrqlQSJ3QhDqTrSJSlVGOjQjKRxVFoWSFVjCJpKQT00Van6Qpq-Kk6z94feJfifK3FsZ8s9TRM68iu3yuimaWpjyoS--we99WtI_01UDUpWWtUmUepA9cEzBxrbJdgZw66V0D74bA8-2-Sz3ftsIYXePlav3UzDn8hvgQkoDgCnldtQ-Pv2f2p_AUEbrqo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2802174286</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Journals</source><creator>Park, Seong-Hi ; Kim, Jeung-Im</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi ; Kim, Jeung-Im</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases was conducted using the following keywords: depression, perinatal-related terms, and EPDS. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in diagnostic studies.
Results
The search identified 823 articles, of which 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 1831 pregnant women from nine studies, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively, with summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve of 0.90. In 515 postpartum women from six studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sROC were 0.79, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. We then compared the EPDS with other tools using three or more studies. The sROC curve of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was 0.74, which was lower than that (0.86) of the EPDS. The sROC curve of the Beck Depression Inventory and the ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was 0.91, similar to that of the EPDS (0.90 and 0.87). However, in comparison with the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (0.98), the sROC curve of the EPDS was 0.54.
Conclusion
As a tool specialized for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women, the EPDS showed excellent performance. Thus, the EPDS can be used in preference to other tools to screen for depression in perinatal women at a primary care setting or a midwifery center.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-0711</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0932-0067</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35416478</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Depression - diagnosis ; Depression, Postpartum - diagnosis ; Depression, Postpartum - psychology ; Endocrinology ; Female ; Gynecology ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery ; Postpartum depression ; Postpartum Period ; Pregnancy ; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales ; Review ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023-05, Vol.307 (5), p.1331-1345</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-1479e5ec2101abf0d52be45e22360ba6fe4af2413ae796e097208d9752c316c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-1479e5ec2101abf0d52be45e22360ba6fe4af2413ae796e097208d9752c316c73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5495-3291 ; 0000-0001-5499-8281</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35416478$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jeung-Im</creatorcontrib><title>Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</title><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases was conducted using the following keywords: depression, perinatal-related terms, and EPDS. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in diagnostic studies.
Results
The search identified 823 articles, of which 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 1831 pregnant women from nine studies, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively, with summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve of 0.90. In 515 postpartum women from six studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sROC were 0.79, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. We then compared the EPDS with other tools using three or more studies. The sROC curve of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was 0.74, which was lower than that (0.86) of the EPDS. The sROC curve of the Beck Depression Inventory and the ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was 0.91, similar to that of the EPDS (0.90 and 0.87). However, in comparison with the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (0.98), the sROC curve of the EPDS was 0.54.
Conclusion
As a tool specialized for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women, the EPDS showed excellent performance. Thus, the EPDS can be used in preference to other tools to screen for depression in perinatal women at a primary care setting or a midwifery center.</description><subject>Depression - diagnosis</subject><subject>Depression, Postpartum - diagnosis</subject><subject>Depression, Postpartum - psychology</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</subject><subject>Postpartum depression</subject><subject>Postpartum Period</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1432-0711</issn><issn>0932-0067</issn><issn>1432-0711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQRiNERUvhBVggS2zYBMaO4yTsUFV-pEp00a6jSTK5dZXYwePc6r5VHxH33gIVC1Yea8732dLJsjcSPkiA6iMDaNA5KJWDKVWZw7PsROoiXSspnz-Zj7OXzLcAUtW1eZEdF6WWRlf1SXZ_GWiwfbRbEluc7GDjTvhRxBsS54N13Ro2N2LxHB1GnMRASyBm653gHicS6AbhEx1E9H5iMfqQNoHIWbd5ilsn0rxx6OI-9NC5YIjrLO78TO6TQME7jjRjtL0ItLV0tydnipijw2nHll9lRyNOTK8fz9Ps-sv51dm3_OLH1-9nny_yXmsZc6mrhkrqlQSJ3QhDqTrSJSlVGOjQjKRxVFoWSFVjCJpKQT00Van6Qpq-Kk6z94feJfifK3FsZ8s9TRM68iu3yuimaWpjyoS--we99WtI_01UDUpWWtUmUepA9cEzBxrbJdgZw66V0D74bA8-2-Sz3ftsIYXePlav3UzDn8hvgQkoDgCnldtQ-Pv2f2p_AUEbrqo</recordid><startdate>20230501</startdate><enddate>20230501</enddate><creator>Park, Seong-Hi</creator><creator>Kim, Jeung-Im</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5495-3291</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5499-8281</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230501</creationdate><title>Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Park, Seong-Hi ; Kim, Jeung-Im</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-1479e5ec2101abf0d52be45e22360ba6fe4af2413ae796e097208d9752c316c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Depression - diagnosis</topic><topic>Depression, Postpartum - diagnosis</topic><topic>Depression, Postpartum - psychology</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</topic><topic>Postpartum depression</topic><topic>Postpartum Period</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Psychiatric Status Rating Scales</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Seong-Hi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Jeung-Im</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Seong-Hi</au><au>Kim, Jeung-Im</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle><stitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</stitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><date>2023-05-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>307</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1331</spage><epage>1345</epage><pages>1331-1345</pages><issn>1432-0711</issn><issn>0932-0067</issn><eissn>1432-0711</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Methods
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases was conducted using the following keywords: depression, perinatal-related terms, and EPDS. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in diagnostic studies.
Results
The search identified 823 articles, of which 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 1831 pregnant women from nine studies, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively, with summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve of 0.90. In 515 postpartum women from six studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sROC were 0.79, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. We then compared the EPDS with other tools using three or more studies. The sROC curve of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was 0.74, which was lower than that (0.86) of the EPDS. The sROC curve of the Beck Depression Inventory and the ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was 0.91, similar to that of the EPDS (0.90 and 0.87). However, in comparison with the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (0.98), the sROC curve of the EPDS was 0.54.
Conclusion
As a tool specialized for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women, the EPDS showed excellent performance. Thus, the EPDS can be used in preference to other tools to screen for depression in perinatal women at a primary care setting or a midwifery center.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>35416478</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5495-3291</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5499-8281</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1432-0711 |
ispartof | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023-05, Vol.307 (5), p.1331-1345 |
issn | 1432-0711 0932-0067 1432-0711 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2649998665 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Journals |
subjects | Depression - diagnosis Depression, Postpartum - diagnosis Depression, Postpartum - psychology Endocrinology Female Gynecology Human Genetics Humans Mass Screening Medical screening Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery Postpartum depression Postpartum Period Pregnancy Psychiatric Status Rating Scales Review Systematic review |
title | Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T14%3A47%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Predictive%20validity%20of%20the%20Edinburgh%20postnatal%20depression%20scale%20and%20other%20tools%20for%20screening%20depression%20in%20pregnant%20and%20postpartum%20women:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20gynecology%20and%20obstetrics&rft.au=Park,%20Seong-Hi&rft.date=2023-05-01&rft.volume=307&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1331&rft.epage=1345&rft.pages=1331-1345&rft.issn=1432-0711&rft.eissn=1432-0711&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2802174286%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2802174286&rft_id=info:pmid/35416478&rfr_iscdi=true |