Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2050-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The Beck Depression Inventory revised (BDI-II) is widely used tool to screen for depression. The aim of the present study was to systematically review and synthesize studies that determined optimal cut points for the BDI-II.
We identified 27 studies that tried to identify optimal cut points for the BDI-II. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS criteria. Cut points and their variability were analyzed descriptively, via simulation and synthesized with a diagnostic meta-analysis. Analysis was performed on all studies and subgroups based on the setting (psychiatric, somatic, healthy).
Cut points identified as optimal ranged from 10 to 25 across all studies. Simulation-based estimations of the variability inherent in studies show that much of the between-study differences may be attributed to random fluctuations. Diagnostic meta-analysis across all studies revealed that a cut point of 14.5 (95% CI 12.75–16.44) is optimal, yielding a sensitivity of 0.86 and a specificity of 0.78. Analyses within the different settings suggest using sample-specific cut points, specifically 18.18 in psychiatric settings, and 12.9 in primary care settings and healthy populations.
Most studies aimed at determining optimal cut points fail to acknowledge that reported results are only estimates and subject to random fluctuations resulting in conflicting recommendations for practitioners. Taking into account these fluctuations, we find that practitioners should use different cut points to screen for depression in primary care and healthy populations (a score of 13 and higher indicates depression) and psychiatric settings (a score of 19 and higher indicates depression). Methods to describe this variability and meta-analysis to synthesize findings across studies should be used more widely.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Adachi, Y., Aleksic, B., Nobata, R., Suzuki, T., Yoshida, K., Ono, Y., & Ozaki, N. (2012). Combination use of Beck Depression Inventory and two-question case-finding instrument as a screening tool for depression in the workplace. British Medical Journal Open, 2(3), e000596. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000596. CrossRef
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II: Beck Depression Inventory manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Dutton, G. R., Grothe, K. B., Jones, G. N., Whitehead, D., Kendra, K., & Brantley, P. J. (2004). Use of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with African American primary care patients. General Hospital Psychiatry, 26(6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.06.002. CrossRefPubMed
Fried, E. I., & Nesse, R. M. (2015). Depression sum-scores don’t add up: Why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1. CrossRef
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University. CrossRef
Mitchell, A. J., Vaze, A., & Rao, S. (2009). Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: A meta-analysis. The Lancet, 374(9690), 609–619. CrossRef
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005). Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(10), 982–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022. CrossRefPubMed
Reitsma, J. B., Rutjes, A. W. S., Khan, K. S., Coomarasamy, A., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2009). A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(8), 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005. CrossRefPubMed
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. CrossRefPubMed
Schulte-van Maaren, Y. W. M., Carlier, I. V. E., Zitman, F. G., van Hemert, A. M., de Waal, M. W. M., van der Does, A. J. W., … Giltay, E. J. (2013). Reference values for major depression questionnaires: The Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 149(1–3), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.02.009. CrossRefPubMed
Seignourel, P. J., Green, C., & Schmitz, J. M. (2008). Factor structure and diagnostic efficiency of the BDI-II in treatment-seeking substance users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93(3), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.10.016. CrossRefPubMed
Strober, L. B., & Arnett, P. A. (2015). Depression in multiple sclerosis: The utility of common self-report instruments and development of a disease-specific measure. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(7), 722–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2015.1063591. CrossRefPubMed
Subica, A. M., Fowler, J. C., Elhai, J. D., Frueh, B. C., Sharp, C., Kelly, E. L., & Allen, J. G. (2014). Factor structure and diagnostic validity of the Beck Depression Inventory–II with adult clinical inpatients: Comparison to a gold-standard diagnostic interview. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1106. CrossRefPubMed
Wang, D., Tian, L., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Smoothed empirical likelihood for the Youden index. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 115, 1–10. CrossRef
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., & QUADAS-2 Steering Group (2013). A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(10), 1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014. CrossRefPubMed
- How depressed is “depressed”? A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis of optimal cut points for the Beck Depression Inventory revised (BDI-II)
Michael von Glischinski
Ruth von Brachel
- Springer International Publishing