TY - JOUR
T1 - Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews
T2 - A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses
AU - Wu, Yin
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Ioannidis, John P A
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Thombs, Brett D
AU - DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration
A2 - Rancāns, Elmārs
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (KRS-134297, PCG-155468, PJT-162206, KRS-140994, KRS-144045). Drs. Wu and Levis were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Dr. Benedetti was supported by a FRQS researcher salary award.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - INTRODUCTION: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results.OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI.METHODS: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis.RESULTS: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80).CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
AB - INTRODUCTION: Three previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results.OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI.METHODS: We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis.RESULTS: In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79-1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.80).CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the interview characteristics.
KW - Classification
KW - Depressive disorders
KW - Diagnostic interviews
KW - Individual participant data meta-analysis
KW - Major depression
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095432734&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1159/000509283
DO - 10.1159/000509283
M3 - Article
C2 - 32814337
SN - 0033-3190
VL - 90
SP - 28
EP - 40
JO - Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
JF - Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
IS - 1
ER -
