| Literature DB >> 34848962 |
Abstract
PURPOSE: Depression is a symptom commonly encountered in primary care; however, it is often not detected by doctors. Recently, disease diagnosis and treatment approaches have been attempted using smart devices. In this study, instrumental effectiveness was confirmed with the diagnostic meta-analysis of studies that demonstrated the diagnostic effectiveness of PHQ-9 for depression using mobile devices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We found all published and unpublished studies through EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and PsychINFO up to March 26, 2021. We performed a meta-analysis by including 1099 subjects in four studies. We performed a diagnostic meta-analysis according to the PHQ-9 cut-off score and machine learning algorithm techniques. Quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data on the sensitivity and specificity of the studies included in the meta-analysis were extracted in a standardized format. Bivariate and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were constructed using the metandi, midas, metabias, and metareg functions of the Stata algorithm meta-analysis words.Entities:
Keywords: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; depression; diagnosis; diagnostic meta-analysis; machine learning; mobile
Year: 2021 PMID: 34848962 PMCID: PMC8612669 DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S339412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat ISSN: 1176-6328 Impact factor: 2.570
Figure 1Flow diagram (PRISMA).
Demographic Contents Include Studies
| Study | Age | Sample Size | PHQ-9 Characteristics (Depressed Severity Level) | PHQ-9 Interval Conducted | Data Collect | Machine Learning Algorithm Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dogrucu 2020a | Age: at least 18 years or older | N= 335 | Cutoff 10 = moderate depression | 2 weeks | Smartphone, Social media data | Random forest |
| Dogrucu 2020b | Cutoff 15 = moderately severe depression | 2 weeks | Smartphone, Social media data | Random forest | ||
| Dogrucu 2020c | Cutoff 20 = severe depression | 2 weeks | Smartphone, Social media data | Random forest | ||
| Masud 2020a | Age: above 18 years of age [mean=24y/SD±5] | N= 33 | 10≦ PHQ-9 <15: moderate depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | Support vector machine (SVM) |
| Masud 2020b | 10≦ PHQ-9 <15: moderate depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | K-nearest neighbor (KNN) | ||
| Masud 2020c | 10≦ PHQ-9 <15: moderate depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | Artificial neural network (ANN) | ||
| Masud 2020d | PHQ-9≧15: severe depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | Support vector machine (SVM) | ||
| Masud 2020e | PHQ-9≧15: severe depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | K-nearest neighbor (KNN) | ||
| Masud 2020f | PHQ-9≧15: severe depression | Every week | Mobile sensor data (11 weeks) | Artificial neural network (ANN) | ||
| Piette 2013 | Age: average 52.2 years [SD=12.5] | N= 208 | PHQ-9≧10: moderate/severe | 2 weeks (weekly, biweekly, monthly) | IVR (interactive voice response) | 10-fold cross validation |
| McIntyre 2021 | Age: 18–65 [mean=46y±12.7] | N= 523 | PHQ-9≧5: depressed | 14 days | Mobile phone on Android platform | 10-fold cross validation |
QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2)
| Study | Patient Selection: Consecutive or Random Sample of Enrolled? | Patient Selection: Avoid Case-Control Design | Patient Selection: Avoided Inappropriate Exclusions? | Patient Selection: Overall Risk of Bias | Patient Election: Concerns Regarding Applicability | Index Test: Index Test Results Interpreted Without Knowledge of the Results of the Reference Standard? | Index Test: If Threshold Pre-Specified | Index Test: Overall Risk of Bias | Index Test: Concerns Regarding Applicability | Reference Test: Reference Test Correctly Classifies Target Condition | Reference Test: Reference Standard Results Interpreted Blind to Index Test | Reference Test: Overall Risk of Bias | Reference Test: Concerns Regarding Applicability | Flow/Timing: Appropriate Interval Between Index Test and Reference Standard | Flow/Timing: All Participants Receive Same Reference Test | Flow/Timing: All Participants Included in Analysis | Flow/Timing: Overall Risk of Bias | Flow/Timing: Concerns Regarding Applicability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dogrucu 2020a | ◎ | ○ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Dogrucu 2020b | ◎ | ○ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Dogrucu 2020c | ◎ | ○ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020a | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020b | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020c | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020d | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020e | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Masud 2020f | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Piette 2013 | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
| Mclntyre 2021 | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ | ◎ | ● | ◎ | ◎ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ▽ | ▽ |
Abbreviations: ○, Yes; ●, No; ▽, Low; ◎, Unclear; Δ, High.
Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy
| Variable | Coef | Std Err | z | P | 95% Conf Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corr (logits) | 0.7630635 | 0.1940425 | 0.0928132–0.9574147 | |||
| Beta | −0.5151134 | −0.2855053 | −1.80 | 0.071 | −1.074693–0.0444667 | |
| Sensitivity | 0.7965256 | 0.644144 | 0.6423612–0.895089 | |||
| Specificity | 0.8498525 | 0.0303055 | 0.7803928–0.9001536 | |||
| DOR | 22.15723 | 12.59309 | 7.273342–67.49893 | |||
| LR+ | 5.304954 | 1.363503 | 3.205546–8.779327 | |||
| LR- | 0.2394232 | 0.0810192 | 0.123346–0.4647368 | |||
| 1/LR- | 4.176705 | 1.413369 | 2.151756–8.107272 | |||
Notes: Log likelihood = −58.743526; Number of studies = 11; Covariance between estimates of E(logitSe) and E(logitSp) = 0.0543045.
Figure 2Forest plot.
Figure 3SROC curve.
Meta-Regression
| Parameter | Category | N studies | Sensitivity | P1 | Specificity | P2 |
| Phq9severe | Yes | 5 | 0.78 [0.56–1.00] | 0.62 | 0.84 [0.74–0.93] | 0.03 |
| No | 6 | 0.81 [0.66–0.96] | 0.86 [0.78–0.93] | |||
| Parameter | Category | LRTChi2 | P value | I2 | I2lo | I2hi |
| Phq9severe | Yes | 0.10 | 0.95 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| No | ||||||
Figure 4Meta-regression.
Figure 5Publication bias.
Figure 6Fagan’s nomogram.