M Belén Vázquez1, M Carmen Míguez2. 1. Faculty of Psychology, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 2. Faculty of Psychology, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Electronic address: mcarmen.miguez@usc.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a self-reported scale designed to detect postnatal depression, and also has been validated in multiple countries for its use during pregnancy, but not in Spain. The objective of this study was to validate the EPDS as a screening instrument to detect depression during different trimesters of pregnancy in Spanish women. METHODS: Longitudinal study of a large, unselected sample of 569 pregnant women who were assessed in the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy by using the EPDS and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). We evaluated the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA). RESULTS: The optimal cut-off point score of the EPDS for screening current SCID diagnosis of combined depression was 9 or more in the first trimester of pregnancy (AUC of 0.76, sensitivity of 67.5%, specificity of 70.9%, PPV of 14.9%, NPV of 96.7%; and OA of 70.7%) and 10 or more in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy (AUC of 0.89 and 0.89, respectively; sensitivity of 81.5% and 78.1%, respectively; specificity of 86.0% and 81.9, respectively; PPV of 23.4% and 21.6%, respectively; NPV of 98.9% and 98.3, respectively; and OA 85.8% and 81.7%, respectively). Likewise, the optimal cut-off point score during pregnancy was 10 or more (AUC of 0.76, sensitivity of 72.4%, specificity of 79.3%, PPV of 18.2%, NPV of 97.8%, and OA of 78.9%). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited due to the low rate of depression cases. CONCLUSIONS: EPDS is an adequate instrument for screening depression in Spanish pregnant women.
BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a self-reported scale designed to detect postnatal depression, and also has been validated in multiple countries for its use during pregnancy, but not in Spain. The objective of this study was to validate the EPDS as a screening instrument to detect depression during different trimesters of pregnancy in Spanish women. METHODS: Longitudinal study of a large, unselected sample of 569 pregnant women who were assessed in the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy by using the EPDS and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). We evaluated the area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA). RESULTS: The optimal cut-off point score of the EPDS for screening current SCID diagnosis of combined depression was 9 or more in the first trimester of pregnancy (AUC of 0.76, sensitivity of 67.5%, specificity of 70.9%, PPV of 14.9%, NPV of 96.7%; and OA of 70.7%) and 10 or more in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy (AUC of 0.89 and 0.89, respectively; sensitivity of 81.5% and 78.1%, respectively; specificity of 86.0% and 81.9, respectively; PPV of 23.4% and 21.6%, respectively; NPV of 98.9% and 98.3, respectively; and OA 85.8% and 81.7%, respectively). Likewise, the optimal cut-off point score during pregnancy was 10 or more (AUC of 0.76, sensitivity of 72.4%, specificity of 79.3%, PPV of 18.2%, NPV of 97.8%, and OA of 78.9%). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited due to the low rate of depression cases. CONCLUSIONS: EPDS is an adequate instrument for screening depression in Spanish pregnant women.
Authors: Laura Andreu-Pejó; Verónica Martínez-Borba; Carlos Suso-Ribera; Jorge Osma Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Satu J Lehtola; Jetro J Tuulari; Noora M Scheinin; Linnea Karlsson; Riitta Parkkola; Harri Merisaari; John D Lewis; Vladimir S Fonov; D Louis Collins; Alan Evans; Jani Saunavaara; Niloofar Hashempour; Tuire Lähdesmäki; Henriette Acosta; Hasse Karlsson Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Beatriz Pereira; Bárbara Figueiredo; Tiago Miguel Pinto; M Carmen Míguez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.390