The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19 95% CI 0.79–1.75) however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64 95% CI 0.52–0.80). Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies 21,953 participants aOR 1.46 95% confidence interval 1.11–1.92]). Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Introduction: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |