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
. 2024 Sep:173:111443.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111443. Epub 2024 Jun 26.

Individual patient data meta-analysis estimates the minimal detectable change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15

Nadia P González-Domínguez  1 , Yin Wu  2 , Suiqiong Fan  2 , Brooke Levis  2 , Ying Sun  2 , Simon Gilbody  3 , John P A Ioannidis  4 , Daphna Harel  5 , Simone N Vigod  6 , Sarah Markham  7 , Roy C Ziegelstein  8 , Pim Cuijpers  9 , Scott B Patten  10 , Jill T Boruff  11 , Brett D Thombs  12 , Andrea Benedetti  13 ; DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) GDS Author Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Free article
Meta-Analysis

Individual patient data meta-analysis estimates the minimal detectable change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15

Nadia P González-Domínguez et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Sep.
Free article

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Depression; Depression symptoms; GDS-15; Individual participant data meta-analysis; Minimal detectable change; Minimally important difference; Standard error of measurement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest All authors have completed the ICJME uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf 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 3 years except: S.N.V. declares that she receives royalties from UpToDate, outside the submitted work; T.J.Q. declares grants from BMS/Pfizer, outside the submitted work. All authors declare no relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced 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.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources