TY - JOUR
T1 - Individual patient data meta-analysis estimates the minimal detectable change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15
AU - The DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) GDS Author Group
AU - González-Domínguez, Nadia P.
AU - Wu, Yin
AU - Fan, Suiqiong
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Sun, Ying
AU - Gilbody, Simon
AU - Ioannidis, John P.A.
AU - Harel, Daphna
AU - Vigod, Simone N.
AU - Markham, Sarah
AU - Ziegelstein, Roy C.
AU - Cuijpers, Pim
AU - Patten, Scott B.
AU - Boruff, Jill T.
AU - Thombs, Brett D.
AU - Benedetti, Andrea
AU - Krishnan, Ankur
AU - He, Chen
AU - Santo, Tiffany Dal
AU - Neupane, Dipika
AU - Brehaut, Eliana
AU - Bhandari, Parash M.
AU - Qiu, Xia
AU - Li, Letong
AU - Imran, Mahrukh
AU - Nassar, Elsa Lynn
AU - Adams, Kathryn Betts
AU - Baillon, Sarah F.
AU - Caramelli, Paulo
AU - Castro-Costa, Erico
AU - Chagas, Marcos H.N.
AU - Dias, Filipi L.C.
AU - Isik, Ahmet Turan
AU - Jetté, Nathalie
AU - Katz, Patricia
AU - Kim, Wonhyoung
AU - König, Hans Helmut
AU - Lima-Costa, Maria Fernanda
AU - Löbner, Margrit
AU - Malakouti, Seyed Kazem
AU - Marsh, Laura
AU - Moon, Heehyul E.
AU - Mougias, Antonis A.
AU - Nelson, Christian J.
AU - Pabst, Alexander
AU - Quinn, Terence J.
AU - Riedel-Heller, Steffi G.
AU - Saracino, Rebecca
AU - Scherer, Martin
AU - Volz, Matthias
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Objectives: To use individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and to examine whether MDC may differ based on participant characteristics and study-level variables. Study Design and Setting: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting. Results: 5876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥80-year-olds and <80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI −0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated. Conclusion: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates.
AB - Objectives: To use individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) and to examine whether MDC may differ based on participant characteristics and study-level variables. Study Design and Setting: This was a secondary analysis of data from an IPDMA on the depression screening accuracy of the GDS. Datasets from studies published in any language were eligible for the present study if they included GDS-15 scores for participants aged 60 or older. MDC of the GDS-15 was estimated via random-effects meta-analysis using 2.77 (MDC95) and 1.41 (MDC67) standard errors of measurement. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate differences in MDC by participant age and sex. Meta-regression was conducted to assess for differences based on study-level variables, including mean age, proportion male, proportion with major depression, and recruitment setting. Results: 5876 participants (mean age 76 years, 40% male, 11% with major depression) from 21 studies were included. The MDC95 was 3.81 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.59, 4.04), and MDC67 was 1.95 (95% CI 1.83, 2.03). The difference in MDC95 was 0.26 points (95% CI 0.04, 0.48) between ≥80-year-olds and <80-year-olds; MDC95 was similar for females and males (0.05, 95% CI −0.12, 0.22). The MDC95 increased by 0.29 points (95% CI 0.17, 0.41) per 10% increase in proportion of participants with major depression; mean age had a small association (0.04 points, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09) with MDC95, but sex and recruitment setting were not significantly associated. Conclusion: The MDC95 was 3.81 points and MDC67 was 1.95 points. MDC95 increased with the proportion of participants with major depression. Results can be used to evaluate individual changes in depression symptoms and as a threshold for assessing minimal clinical important difference estimates.
KW - Depression
KW - Depression symptoms
KW - GDS-15
KW - Individual participant data meta-analysis
KW - Minimal detectable change
KW - Minimally important difference
KW - Standard error of measurement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199757159&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85199757159&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111443
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111443
M3 - Article
C2 - 38942179
AN - SCOPUS:85199757159
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 173
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
M1 - 111443
ER -