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
- PMID: 33089942
- PMCID: PMC7992289
- DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1860
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
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.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work;
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



Similar articles
-
Depression prevalence of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 was compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM using individual participant data meta-analysis.Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 29;14(1):17430. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68496-3. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39075146 Free PMC article.
-
Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS: Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;65(12):835-844. doi: 10.1177/0706743720934959. Epub 2020 Oct 26. Can J Psychiatry. 2020. PMID: 33104415 Free PMC article.
-
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.Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2019 Dec;28(4):e1803. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1803. Epub 2019 Sep 30. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2019. PMID: 31568624 Free PMC article.
-
[Prevalence of postpartum depression in Spanish mothers: comparison of estimation by mean of the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale].Med Clin (Barc). 2003 Mar 15;120(9):326-9. Med Clin (Barc). 2003. PMID: 12646107 Spanish.
-
Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ. 2020 Nov 11;371:m4022. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4022. BMJ. 2020. PMID: 33177069 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Depression prevalence of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 was compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM using individual participant data meta-analysis.Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 29;14(1):17430. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-68496-3. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39075146 Free PMC article.
-
Prevalence of Postpartum Depression Based on Diagnostic Interviews: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Depress Anxiety. 2023 Aug 19;2023:8403222. doi: 10.1155/2023/8403222. eCollection 2023. Depress Anxiety. 2023. PMID: 40224605 Free PMC article.
-
Postnatal depression: identification of risk factors in the short-stay maternity program in Belgium. A cross-sectional study.BJGP Open. 2021 Dec 14;5(6):BJGPO.2021.0127. doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0127. Print 2021. BJGP Open. 2021. PMID: 34465576 Free PMC article.
-
Health anxiety, death anxiety and coronaphobia: Predictors of postpartum depression symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic.Midwifery. 2023 Sep;124:103747. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2023.103747. Epub 2023 May 30. Midwifery. 2023. PMID: 37276749 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of Kushal Maa, a group-based mhealth interactive education and social support intervention for maternal and neonatal health outcomes: study protocol for a multisite randomised controlled trial in India.BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 27;15(6):e104213. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104213. BMJ Open. 2025. PMID: 40578858 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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.
-
- American Psychiatric Association . (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐III (3rd ed., revised). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Association.
-
- American Psychiatric Association . (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
-
- American Psychiatric Association . (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM‐IV (4th ed., text revised). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Association.
-
- American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.