OBJECTIVE: The objective was to provide a systematic review of the screening accuracy of both versions of the Geriatric Depressions Scale (GDS-30, GDS-15). METHOD: An electronic search was performed by using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psyndex and the Cochrane library. The selection and examination of papers were performed by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: Among the 42 papers included, important methodological aspects such as sampling methods or blinding of research workers often were not reported. For both GDS versions, similar validity indices were found (GDS-30: sensitivity 0.753, specificity 0.770; GDS-15: sensitivity 0.805, specificity 0.750). Using comparative studies based on the identical samples, both GDS versions showed significantly better validity indices than the 'Yale-1-question' screen, but were similar to the 'Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale' (CES-D). CONCLUSION: The GDS does not show a better criterion validity than the CES-D, but methodological limitations of primary studies hamper the generalizability of pooled analyses.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to provide a systematic review of the screening accuracy of both versions of the Geriatric Depressions Scale (GDS-30, GDS-15). METHOD: An electronic search was performed by using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psyndex and the Cochrane library. The selection and examination of papers were performed by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: Among the 42 papers included, important methodological aspects such as sampling methods or blinding of research workers often were not reported. For both GDS versions, similar validity indices were found (GDS-30: sensitivity 0.753, specificity 0.770; GDS-15: sensitivity 0.805, specificity 0.750). Using comparative studies based on the identical samples, both GDS versions showed significantly better validity indices than the 'Yale-1-question' screen, but were similar to the 'Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale' (CES-D). CONCLUSION: The GDS does not show a better criterion validity than the CES-D, but methodological limitations of primary studies hamper the generalizability of pooled analyses.
Authors: A Lynn Snow; Cashuna Huddleston; Christina Robinson; Mark E Kunik; Amber L Bush; Nancy Wilson; Jessica Calleo; Amber Paukert; Cynthia Kraus-Schuman; Nancy J Petersen; Melinda A Stanley Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Haider J Warraich; Dalane W Kitzman; David J Whellan; Pamela W Duncan; Robert J Mentz; Amy M Pastva; M Benjamin Nelson; Bharathi Upadhya; Gordon R Reeves Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Adam P Spira; George W Rebok; Katie L Stone; Joel H Kramer; Kristine Yaffe Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Howard A Fink; Tien N Vo; Lisa Langsetmo; Joshua I Barzilay; Jane A Cauley; John T Schousboe; Eric S Orwoll; Muna T Canales; Areef Ishani; Nancy E Lane; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Catherine S Cole; Mark Mennemeier; James E Bost; Laura Smith-Olinde; Diane Howieson Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2011-10-09 Impact factor: 2.522
Authors: Linda Lee; W Wayne Weston; George Heckman; Micheline Gagnon; F Joseph Lee; Scott Sloka Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.275