Yuvaraj Krishnamoorthy1, Sathish Rajaa2, Tanveer Rehman3. 1. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry 605006, India. Electronic address: yuvi.1130@gmail.com. 2. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry 605006, India. Electronic address: psrajaa2410@gmail.com. 3. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry 605006, India. Electronic address: drtanveerrehman@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Depression is under-reported and under-identified by the healthcare professionals. Geriatric depression scale (GDS) is one of the most commonly used instruments for screening the older adults for depression. The current review was done to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various forms of GDS for screening of depression among older adults. METHODS: We conducted systematic search in various databases like Medline, Cochrane library, Sciencedirect and Google Scholar from inception till May 2019. Quality of trials was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to obtain the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for each of the GDS forms. RESULTS: Totally 53 studies with 17,018 participants were included in the review. We found the pooled sensitivity and specificity of GDS 30 to be 82 % and 76 % with near higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.85). GDS 15 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86 % and 79 % with higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.90). GDS 10 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 87 % and 75 % with AUC = 0.83. Our study found GDS 4 to have sensitivity of 74 % with specificity of 71 %. All the four forms of GDS belonged to right lower quadrant of LR scatter-gram indicating neither confirmation nor exclusion. CONCLUSION: Current study found that all the forms of GDS are highly useful for detecting depression among elderly with higher sensitivity and specificity. The diagnostic performance was much better for shorter forms of GDS such as GDS 15 and GDS 10 when compared to GDS 30.
OBJECTIVES:Depression is under-reported and under-identified by the healthcare professionals. Geriatric depression scale (GDS) is one of the most commonly used instruments for screening the older adults for depression. The current review was done to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various forms of GDS for screening of depression among older adults. METHODS: We conducted systematic search in various databases like Medline, Cochrane library, Sciencedirect and Google Scholar from inception till May 2019. Quality of trials was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We performed bivariate meta-analysis to obtain the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for each of the GDS forms. RESULTS: Totally 53 studies with 17,018 participants were included in the review. We found the pooled sensitivity and specificity of GDS 30 to be 82 % and 76 % with near higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.85). GDS 15 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86 % and 79 % with higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.90). GDS 10 had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 87 % and 75 % with AUC = 0.83. Our study found GDS 4 to have sensitivity of 74 % with specificity of 71 %. All the four forms of GDS belonged to right lower quadrant of LR scatter-gram indicating neither confirmation nor exclusion. CONCLUSION: Current study found that all the forms of GDS are highly useful for detecting depression among elderly with higher sensitivity and specificity. The diagnostic performance was much better for shorter forms of GDS such as GDS 15 and GDS 10 when compared to GDS 30.
Authors: Doraisamy Guna; Coral Milburn-Curtis; Hui Zhang; Hongli Sam Goh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Lisanne Tap; Andrea Corsonello; Francesc Formiga; Rafael Moreno-Gonzalez; Johan Ärnlöv; Axel C Carlsson; Regina Roller-Wirnsberger; Gerhard Wirnsberger; Gijsbertus Ziere; Ellen Freiberger; Cornel Sieber; Tomasz Kostka; Agnieszka Guligowska; Pedro Gil; Sara Lainez Martinez; Rada Artzi-Medvedik; Ilan Yehoshua; Paolo Fabbietti; Fabrizia Lattanzio; Francesco Mattace-Raso Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Margherita Napolitani; Giovanni Guarducci; Gulnara Abinova; Gabriele Messina; Nicola Nante Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.390