MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910872315 · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0930-3

Screening for depression in women during pregnancy or the first year postpartum and in the general adult population: a protocol for two systematic reviews to update a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

2019· article· en· W2910872315 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Candyce Hamel, Eddy Lang, Kate Morissette, Andrew Beck, Adrienne Stevens, Becky Skidmore, Heather Colquhoun, John C. LeBlanc, Ainsley Moore, John J. Riva, Brett D. Thombs, Ian Colman, Sophie Grigoriadis, Stuart G. Nicholls, Beth K. Potter, Kerri Ritchie, J.A. Robert, Priya Vasa, Bianca Lauria-Horner, Scott B. Patten, Simone N. Vigod, Brian Hutton, Beverley Shea, Shamila Shanmugasegaram, Julian Little, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreJewish General HospitalOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaWomen's College HospitalCanadian Apheresis GroupImpactUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health Services
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineProtocol (science)PregnancyPostpartum depressionDepression (economics)PopulationFamily medicinePsychiatryObstetricsAlternative medicineGynecologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the World Health Organization reported that depression is the most common cause of disability worldwide, with over 300 million people currently living with depression. Depression affects an individual's physical health and well-being, impacts psychosocial functioning, and has specific negative short- and long-term effects on maternal health, child health, developmental trajectories, and family health. The aim of these reviews is to identify evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in the general adult population and in pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS: Search strategies were developed and tested through an iterative process by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, and a randomized controlled trial filter will be used. The general adult review will be an update of a systematic review previously used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care for their 2013 guideline recommendation. The search strategy will be updated and will start from the last search date of the previous review (May 2012). The pregnant and postpartum review will be a de novo review with no date restriction. For both reviews, we will search for unpublished documents following the CADTH Grey Matters checklist and relevant websites. Titles and abstracts will be screened using the liberal accelerated method. Two reviewers will independently screen full-text articles for relevance using pre-specified eligibility criteria and assess the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Outcomes of interest for the general adult population review include symptoms of depression or diagnosis of major depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, day-to-day functionality, lost time at work/school, impact on lifestyle behaviour, suicidality, false-positive result, labelling/stigma, overdiagnosis or overtreatment, and harms of treatment. Outcomes of interest for the pregnant and postpartum review include mental health outcomes (e.g. diagnosis of major depressive disorder), parenting outcomes (e.g. mother-child interactions), and infant outcomes (e.g. infant health and development). DISCUSSION: These two systematic reviews will offer informative evaluations of depression screening. The findings will be used by the Task Force to help develop guideline recommendations on depression screening in the general adult population and in pregnant and postpartum women in Canada. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099690).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.023
Bibliometrics0.0220.022
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207