Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Dec;28(4):e1803.
doi: 10.1002/mpr.1803. Epub 2019 Sep 30.

Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Brooke Levis  1   2 Dean McMillan  3 Ying Sun  1 Chen He  1   2 Danielle B Rice  1   4 Ankur Krishnan  1 Yin Wu  1   5 Marleine Azar  1   2 Tatiana A Sanchez  1 Matthew J Chiovitti  1 Parash Mani Bhandari  1   2 Dipika Neupane  1   2 Nazanin Saadat  1 Kira E Riehm  1   6 Mahrukh Imran  1 Jill T Boruff  7 Pim Cuijpers  8 Simon Gilbody  3 John P A Ioannidis  9 Lorie A Kloda  10 Scott B Patten  11   12   13 Ian Shrier  1   2   14 Roy C Ziegelstein  15 Liane Comeau  16 Nicholas D Mitchell  17   18 Marcello Tonelli  19 Simone N Vigod  20 Franca Aceti  21 Rubén Alvarado  22 Cosme Alvarado-Esquivel  23 Muideen O Bakare  24   25 Jacqueline Barnes  26 Cheryl Tatano Beck  27 Carola Bindt  28 Philip M Boyce  29   30 Adomas Bunevicius  31 Tiago Castro E Couto  32 Linda H Chaudron  33 Humberto Correa  34 Felipe Pinheiro de Figueiredo  35 Valsamma Eapen  36   37   38 Michelle Fernandes  39   40 Barbara Figueiredo  41 Jane R W Fisher  42 Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve  43   44   45 Lisa Giardinelli  46 Nadine Helle  28 Louise M Howard  47   48 Dina Sami Khalifa  49   50   51 Jane Kohlhoff  36   37   52 Laima Kusminskas  53 Zoltán Kozinszky  54 Lorenzo Lelli  46 Angeliki A Leonardou  55 Beth A Lewis  56 Michael Maes  57   58 Valentina Meuti  21 Sandra Nakić Radoš  59 Purificación Navarro García  43   60 Daisuke Nishi  61   62 Daniel Okitundu Luwa E-Andjafono  63 Emma Robertson-Blackmore  64 Tamsen J Rochat  65   66 Heather J Rowe  42 Bonnie W M Siu  67 Alkistis Skalkidou  68 Alan Stein  69   70 Robert C Stewart  71   72 Kuan-Pin Su  73   74 Inger Sundström-Poromaa  68 Meri Tadinac  75 S Darius Tandon  76 Iva Tendais  41 Pavaani Thiagayson  77   78   79 Annamária Töreki  80 Anna Torres-Giménez  43   44   45 Thach D Tran  42 Kylee Trevillion  47 Katherine Turner  81 Johann M Vega-Dienstmaier  82 Karen Wynter  42   83 Kimberly A Yonkers  84   85   86 Andrea Benedetti  2   87   88 Brett D Thombs  1   2   4   5   88   89
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Brooke Levis et al. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2019 Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum.

Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics.

Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased.

Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.

Keywords: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; depressive disorders; diagnostic interviews; individual participant data meta-analysis; major depression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study selection process
Figure 2
Figure 2
Probability of major depression classification by EPDS score for the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. CIDI, Composite International Diagnostic Interview; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; MINI, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders. The histogram presents the number of subjects at each EPDS score for each diagnostic interview. The lines present the proportion with major depression at each EPDS score for each diagnostic interview. The lines for each diagnostic interview were generated by estimating generalised additive logistic regression models with EPDS score as the main predictor and proportion with major depression as the outcome. The shapes of the associations were estimated directly from the data, using the mgcv package, with the amount of smoothing estimated via generalised cross validation. The analyses did not account for clustering by study

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III (3rd ed., revised). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV (4th ed., text revised). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Anthony, J. C. , Folstein, M. , Romanoski, A. J. , Von Korff, M. R. , Nestadt, G. R. , Chahal, R. , … Gruenberg, E. M. (1985). Comparison of the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis: Experience in eastern Baltimore. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42(7), 667–675. 10.1001/archpsyc.1985.01790300029004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Booth, B. M. , Kirchner, J. A. , Hamilton, G. , Harrell, R. , & Smith, G. R. (1998). Diagnosing depression in the medically ill: Validity of a lay‐administered structured diagnostic interview. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 32(6), 353–360. 10.1016/S0022-3956(98)00031-4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types