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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2023-05, Vol.307 (5), p.1331-1345
Hauptverfasser: Park, Seong-Hi, Kim, Jeung-Im
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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