The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: a synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: a synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses
Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: a synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses
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. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. 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. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. 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 [CI] 1.11–1.92]). 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). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
0033-3190
28–40
Wu, Yin
7c62914b-8572-4128-a350-e73027abdf83
Fernandes, Michelle
16d62e60-ae8e-455f-88d3-88e778253b4a
Levis, Brooke
3b07dd93-2fba-481f-89b5-557430db5dca
Ioannidis, John P.A.
3f25e120-eff0-47ee-a8e7-3c5c2d4d4b89
Benedetti, Andrea
a3c86900-ef15-438a-9577-e8fd82281bd6
Thombs, Brett D.
5f4b5a36-d7ea-490b-b2de-de640d1df1e9
the Depression Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group
Wu, Yin
7c62914b-8572-4128-a350-e73027abdf83
Fernandes, Michelle
16d62e60-ae8e-455f-88d3-88e778253b4a
Levis, Brooke
3b07dd93-2fba-481f-89b5-557430db5dca
Ioannidis, John P.A.
3f25e120-eff0-47ee-a8e7-3c5c2d4d4b89
Benedetti, Andrea
a3c86900-ef15-438a-9577-e8fd82281bd6
Thombs, Brett D.
5f4b5a36-d7ea-490b-b2de-de640d1df1e9

the Depression Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group (2021) Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: a synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 90 (1), 28–40. (doi:10.1159/000509283).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results. Objective: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. Methods: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. 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. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Results: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. 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 [CI] 1.11–1.92]). 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). Conclusions: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 5 June 0200
e-pub ahead of print date: 19 August 2020
Published date: 1 December 2021

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 457209
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/457209
ISSN: 0033-3190
PURE UUID: bbe1b13a-0287-4d24-b378-f770f99f2d04
ORCID for Michelle Fernandes: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-3389

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 May 2022 16:42
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:10

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Yin Wu
Author: Michelle Fernandes ORCID iD
Author: Brooke Levis
Author: John P.A. Ioannidis
Author: Andrea Benedetti
Author: Brett D. Thombs
Corporate Author: the Depression Screening Data (DEPRESSD) EPDS Group

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×