Larry Wang1, Kurt Kroenke2, Timothy E Stump3, Patrick O Monahan3. 1. Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States. Electronic address: lawang@iu.edu. 2. Indiana University, School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States; Regenstrief Institute Inc, Indianapolis, IN, United States. Electronic address: kkroenke@regenstrief.org. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University, Fairbanks School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Perinatal depression (PND) is a prevalent and disabling problem both during pregnancy and the postpartum period. The legacy screening measure has been the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). This systematic review examines the validity of the PHQ-9 as a screener for PND. METHODS: The following databases were searched from January 2001 (when the PHQ-9 was first published) through June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychInfo. Studies that compared the PHQ-9 to a criterion standard psychiatric interview were used to determine the operating characteristics of sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC). Studies comparing the PHQ-9 to the EPDS and other depression scales evaluated convergent validity. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were eligible for criterion (n = 10) or convergent (n = 25) validity. Meta-analysis of the 7 criterion validity studies using the standard PHQ-9 cut point ≥10 showed a pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of 0.84, 0.81 and 0.89, respectively. Operating characteristics of the PHQ-9 and EPDS were nearly identical in head-to-head comparison studies. The median correlation between the PHQ-9 and EPDS was 0.59, and categorical agreement was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 appears to be a viable option for perinatal depression screening with operating characteristics similar to the legacy EPDS.
OBJECTIVES: Perinatal depression (PND) is a prevalent and disabling problem both during pregnancy and the postpartum period. The legacy screening measure has been the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). This systematic review examines the validity of the PHQ-9 as a screener for PND. METHODS: The following databases were searched from January 2001 (when the PHQ-9 was first published) through June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychInfo. Studies that compared the PHQ-9 to a criterion standard psychiatric interview were used to determine the operating characteristics of sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC). Studies comparing the PHQ-9 to the EPDS and other depression scales evaluated convergent validity. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were eligible for criterion (n = 10) or convergent (n = 25) validity. Meta-analysis of the 7 criterion validity studies using the standard PHQ-9 cut point ≥10 showed a pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of 0.84, 0.81 and 0.89, respectively. Operating characteristics of the PHQ-9 and EPDS were nearly identical in head-to-head comparison studies. The median correlation between the PHQ-9 and EPDS was 0.59, and categorical agreement was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 appears to be a viable option for perinatal depression screening with operating characteristics similar to the legacy EPDS.
Authors: Nancy K Grote; Wayne J Katon; Joan E Russo; Mary Jane Lohr; Mary Curran; Erin Galvin; Kathy Carson Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Sixto E Sanchez; Gabriella C Puente; Guillermo Atencio; Chungfang Qiu; David Yanez; Bizu Gelaye; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Reprod Med Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 0.142
Authors: Kimberly D Gregory; David Chelmow; Heidi D Nelson; Maureen Sayres Van Niel; Jeanne A Conry; Francisco Garcia; Susan M Kendig; Nancy O'Reilly; Amir Qaseem; Diana Ramos; Alina Salganicoff; Sarah Son; Julie K Wood; Christopher Zahn Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Loredana Cena; Gabriella Palumbo; Fiorino Mirabella; Antonella Gigantesco; Alberto Stefana; Alice Trainini; Nella Tralli; Antonio Imbasciati Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2020-03-11
Authors: Julie A Vignato; S Banu Gumusoglu; Heather A Davis; Sabrina M Scroggins; Wendy S Hamilton; Debra S Brandt; Gary L Pierce; Boyd A Knosp; Donna A Santillan; Mark K Santillan Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 2.924