Design, Reporting, and Risk of Bias in Depression Screening Tool Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A Series of Meta-research Reviews of Studies Published in 2018-2021
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Depression accounts for more years lived with disability than any other medical condition.Depression screening has been proposed to identify individuals with unrecognized and untreated depression.A review of studies published in 2013-2015, however, found that a large proportion of primary studies of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools were conducted in samples that inappropriately include individuals currently diagnosed or being treated for depression.This may lead to bias in estimates.Similarly, concerns have been raised regarding sample sizes of such studies.A review of studies published in 2013-2015 found that only 3% of studies reported sample size calculations, and, overall, sample sizes were too small to generate precise accuracy estimates.Finally, depression screening accuracy studies must be completely and transparently reported.No study, however, has evaluated the extent to which studies have reported results consistent with the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement (STARD) reporting guideline.Methods: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed interface) on May 21, 2021 for primary studies of depression screening accuracy published January 1, 2018 or later.Through a series of 3 metaresearch reviews, we assessed (1) the proportion of studies that appropriately excluded individuals with a depression diagnosis or in treatment at the time of study enrolment (Study 1);(2) the proportion that reported sample size calculations, the proportion that reported confidence intervals (CIs), and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity (Study 2); and (3) adherence of studies to the STARD requirements (Study 3).Results: A total of 106 studies were identified and assessed.Only 18 studies (17%; 95% CI, 11% to 25%) appropriately excluded individuals with a depression diagnosis or in treatment at the time of study enrolment, which represented an improvement of 11% (95% CI, 3% to 20%) v compared to similar studies published between 2013 and 2015.Only 12 studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review; 36 studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs.Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, 7 (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of 10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of 21%.Eighty-four studies (82%) had lower bounds of confidence intervals < 80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity.These results were similar to those reported previously.Of 34 STARD items or sub-items, the number of adequately reported items per study ranged from 7 to 18 (mean = 11.5, standard deviation [SD] = 2.5; median = 11.5), and the number inadequately reported ranged from 3 to 17 (mean = 10.1,SD = 2.5; median = 10.0).There were 8 items adequately reported, 7 partially reported, 11 inadequately reported, and 4 not applicable in 50% of studies; the remaining 4 items had mixed reporting. Conclusion:Few depression screening accuracy studies appropriately excluded individuals already diagnosed or treated for depression; few studies reported sample size calculations, and sample sizes in most studies were too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates.Appropriately designed studies, excluding individuals already diagnosed or treated for depression, are needed to generate realistic accuracy estimates that reflect what would be achieved in clinical practice.Future studies should conduct precision-based a priori sample size calculations to either attain desired precision levels or to understand limitations prior to initiating a study.Finally, recently published depression screening accuracy studies are not optimally reported.There is a need for attention to more fulsome reporting of methodological conduct of these studies.The research community,
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,033 | 0,152 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».