BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) has been evaluated in hospital settings but its validity and added value in primary care is uncertain. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis analysing the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility and added value of the GDS in primary care. METHODS: A comprehensive search identified 69 studies that measured the diagnostic validity of the GDS against a semi-structured psychiatric interview and of these 17 analyses (in 14 publications) took place in primary care. Seven studies examined the GDS(30) and 10 studies examined the GDS(15). Heterogeneity was moderate to high, therefore random effects meta-analysis was used. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy of the GDS(30) after meta-analytic weighting was given by a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI=66.3% to 86.8%) and a specificity=65.4% (95% CI=44.2% to 83.8%). For the GDS(15) the sensitivity was 81.3% (95% CI=77.2% to 85.2%) and specificity=78.4% (95% CI=71.2% to 84.8%). The fraction correctly identified (also known as efficiency) by the GDS(15) was significantly higher than the GDS(30) (77.6% vs 71.2%, Chi(2)=24.8 P<0.0001). The clinical utility of both the GDS(30) and GDS(15) was "poor" for case-finding (UI+ 0.29, UI+ 0.32 respectively). However the GDS(15) was rated as "good" for screening (UI- 0.75) whereas the GDS(30) was "adequate" (UI- 0.60). Concerning added value, when identification using the GDS was compared with general practitioners' ability to diagnose late-life depressions unassisted by tools, at a prevalence of 15% the GDS(30) had no added benefit whereas the GDS(15) helped identify an additional 4 cases per 100 primary care attendees and also helped rule-out an additional 4 non-cases per 100 attendees. Thus we estimate the potential gain of the GDS(15) in primary care to be 8% over unassisted clinical detection but at a cost of 3-4 minutes of extra time per appointment. CONCLUSION: The GDS yields potential added value in primary care. We recommend the GDS(15) but not the GDS(30) in the diagnosis of late-life depression in primary care. 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) has been evaluated in hospital settings but its validity and added value in primary care is uncertain. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis analysing the diagnostic accuracy, clinical utility and added value of the GDS in primary care. METHODS: A comprehensive search identified 69 studies that measured the diagnostic validity of the GDS against a semi-structured psychiatric interview and of these 17 analyses (in 14 publications) took place in primary care. Seven studies examined the GDS(30) and 10 studies examined the GDS(15). Heterogeneity was moderate to high, therefore random effects meta-analysis was used. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy of the GDS(30) after meta-analytic weighting was given by a sensitivity of 77.4% (95% CI=66.3% to 86.8%) and a specificity=65.4% (95% CI=44.2% to 83.8%). For the GDS(15) the sensitivity was 81.3% (95% CI=77.2% to 85.2%) and specificity=78.4% (95% CI=71.2% to 84.8%). The fraction correctly identified (also known as efficiency) by the GDS(15) was significantly higher than the GDS(30) (77.6% vs 71.2%, Chi(2)=24.8 P<0.0001). The clinical utility of both the GDS(30) and GDS(15) was "poor" for case-finding (UI+ 0.29, UI+ 0.32 respectively). However the GDS(15) was rated as "good" for screening (UI- 0.75) whereas the GDS(30) was "adequate" (UI- 0.60). Concerning added value, when identification using the GDS was compared with general practitioners' ability to diagnose late-life depressions unassisted by tools, at a prevalence of 15% the GDS(30) had no added benefit whereas the GDS(15) helped identify an additional 4 cases per 100 primary care attendees and also helped rule-out an additional 4 non-cases per 100 attendees. Thus we estimate the potential gain of the GDS(15) in primary care to be 8% over unassisted clinical detection but at a cost of 3-4 minutes of extra time per appointment. CONCLUSION: The GDS yields potential added value in primary care. We recommend the GDS(15) but not the GDS(30) in the diagnosis of late-life depression in primary care. 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: Nicolas O Noiseux; John J Callaghan; Charles R Clark; M Bridget Zimmerman; Kathleen A Sluka; Barbara A Rakel Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Marie Dorow; Janine Stein; Alexander Pabst; Siegfried Weyerer; Jochen Werle; Wolfgang Maier; Lisa Miebach; Martin Scherer; Anne Stark; Birgitt Wiese; Lilia Moor; Jens-Oliver Bock; Hans-Helmut König; Steffi G Riedel-Heller Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Edward D Huey; Stephanie Cosentino; Silvia Chapman; Martina Azar; Brittany Rohl; Kathleen Collins; Sarah Morgan; Xinhua Liu; Elan D Louis Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Andrew J Petkus; Diana Younan; Xinhui Wang; Marc Serre; William Vizuete; Susan Resnick; Mark A Espeland; Margaret Gatz; Helena Chui; JoAnn E Manson; Jiu-Chiuan Chen Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Joseph S Goveas; Mark A Espeland; Patricia E Hogan; Hilary A Tindle; Regina A Shih; Jane M Kotchen; Jennifer G Robinson; Deborah E Barnes; Susan M Resnick Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Kavon Javaherian; Brianne M Newman; Hua Weng; Jason Hassenstab; Chengjie Xiong; Dean Coble; Anne M Fagan; Tammie Benzinger; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2019 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703