Journal article icon

Journal article

Probability of major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews: A synthesis of three individual participant data meta-analyses

Abstract:

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.

Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1159/000509283

Authors

Contributors

Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Psychiatry
Role:
Contributor
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
MSD
Department:
Women's & Reproductive Health
Role:
Contributor


Publisher:
Karger Publishers
Journal:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics More from this journal
Volume:
90
Issue:
1
Pages:
28-40
Publication date:
2020-08-19
Acceptance date:
2020-06-05
DOI:
EISSN:
1423-0348
ISSN:
0033-3190


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1127499
Local pid:
pubs:1127499
Deposit date:
2020-08-20
ARK identifier:

Terms of use


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP