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
. 2021 Mar;30(1):e1860.
doi: 10.1002/mpr.1860. Epub 2020 Oct 22.

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Anita Lyubenova  1 Dipika Neupane  1   2 Brooke Levis  1   2   3 Yin Wu  1   2   4 Ying Sun  1 Chen He  1   2 Ankur Krishnan  1 Parash M Bhandari  1   2 Zelalem Negeri  1   2 Mahrukh Imran  1 Danielle B Rice  1   5 Marleine Azar  1   2 Matthew J Chiovitti  1 Nazanin Saadat  1 Kira E Riehm  1   6 Jill T Boruff  7 John P A Ioannidis  8   9   10   11 Pim Cuijpers  12 Simon Gilbody  13 Lorie A Kloda  14 Scott B Patten  15   16   17 Ian Shrier  1   2   18 Roy C Ziegelstein  19 Liane Comeau  20 Nicholas D Mitchell  21   22 Marcello Tonelli  23 Simone N Vigod  24 Franca Aceti  25 Jacqueline Barnes  26 Amar D Bavle  27 Cheryl T Beck  28 Carola Bindt  29 Philip M Boyce  30   31 Adomas Bunevicius  32 Linda H Chaudron  33 Nicolas Favez  34   35 Barbara Figueiredo  36 Lluïsa Garcia-Esteve  37   38   39 Lisa Giardinelli  40 Nadine Helle  29 Louise M Howard  41   42 Jane Kohlhoff  43   44   45 Laima Kusminskas  46 Zoltán Kozinszky  47 Lorenzo Lelli  40 Angeliki A Leonardou  48 Valentina Meuti  25 Sandra N Radoš  49 Purificación N García  37   50 Susan J Pawlby  41 Chantal Quispel  51 Emma Robertson-Blackmore  52 Tamsen J Rochat  53   54 Deborah J Sharp  55 Bonnie W M Siu  56 Alan Stein  57   58 Robert C Stewart  59   60 Meri Tadinac  61 S Darius Tandon  62 Iva Tendais  36 Annamária Töreki  63 Anna Torres-Giménez  37   38   39 Thach D Tran  64 Kylee Trevillion  41 Katherine Turner  65 Johann M Vega-Dienstmaier  66 Andrea Benedetti  2   67   68 Brett D Thombs  1   2   4   5   68   69   70
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Anita Lyubenova et al. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies.

Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID.

Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%-34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%-12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: -13.7%, 12.3%).

Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.

Keywords: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; depression prevalence; individual participant data meta-analysis; major depression; structured clinical interview for DSM.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years with the following exceptions: Dr. Tonelli declares that he has received a grant from Merck Canada, outside the submitted work. Dr. Vigod declares that she receives royalties from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. Dr. Beck declares that she receives royalties for her Postpartum Depression Screening Scale published by Western Psychological Services. Dr. Boyce declares that he receives grants and personal fees from Servier, grants from Lundbeck, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Howard declares that she has received personal fees from NICE Scientific Advice, outside the submitted work. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Anita Lyubenova, Dipika Neupane, Brooke Levis, Yin Wu, Jill T. Boruff, John P. A. Ioannidis, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, Lorie A. Kloda, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Liane Comeau, Nicholas D. Mitchell, Marcello Tonelli, Simone N. Vigod, Andrea Benedetti, and Brett D. Thombs were responsible for the study conception and design. Jill T. Boruff and Lorie A. Kloda designed and conducted database searches to identify eligible studies. Franca Aceti, Jacqueline Barnes, Amar D. Bavle, Cheryl T. Beck, Carola Bindt, Philip M. Boyce, Andrea Bunevicius, Linda H. Chaudron, Nicolas Favez, Barbara Figueiredo, Lluïsa Garcia‐Esteve, Lisa Giardinelli, Nadine Helle, Louise M. Howard, Jane Kohlhoff, Laima Kusminskas, Zoltán Kozinszky, Lorenzo Lelli, Angeliki A. Leonardou, Valentina Meuti, Sandra N. Radoš, Purificación N. García, Susan J. Pawlby, Chantal Quispel, Emma Robertson‐Blackmore, Tamsen J. Rochat, Deborah J. Sharp, Bonnie W. M. Siu, Alan Stein, Robert C. Stewart, Meri Tadinac, S. Darius Tandon, Iva Tendais, Annamária Töreki, Anna Torres‐Giménez, Thach D. Tran, Kylee Trevillion, Katherine Turner, Johann M. Vega‐Dienstmaier were responsible for collection of primary data included in this study. Anita Lyubenova, Dipika Neupane, Brooke Levis, Ying Sun, Chen He, Ankur Krishnan, Parash M. Bhandari, Zelalem Negeri, Mahrukh Imran, Danielle B. Rice, Marleine Azar, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Nazanin Saadat, Kira E. Riehm, and Brett D. Thombs contributed to the title and abstract and full‐text review processes and data extraction for the meta‐analysis. Anita Lyubenova, Dipika Neupane, Brooke Levis, Yin Wu, Andrea Benedetti, and Brett D. Thombs contributed to the data analysis and interpretation. Anita Lyubenova, Dipika Neupane, Brooke Levis, Yin Wu, Andrea Benedetti, and Brett D. Thombs contributed to drafting the manuscript. All authors provided a critical review and approved the final manuscript. Andrea Benedetti and Brett D. Thombs are guarantors.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flow diagram of the study selection process. CI, confidence interval; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Prevalence estimates and 95% CI based on each EPDS cutoff threshold from 9 to 14. CI, confidence interval; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Dispersion of the differences between the prevalence estimates based on EPDS 14 and SCID major depression for each study, considering the study sample size. EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; SCID, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aceti, F. , Aveni, F. , Baglioni, V. , Carluccio, G. M. , Colosimo, D. , Giacchetti, N. , … Biondi, M. (2012). Perinatal and postpartum depression: From attachment to personality. A pilot study. Journal of Psychopathology, 18, 328–334.
    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. American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Publication types