Searches as data: archiving and sharing search strategies using an institutional data repository.

Background: By defining search strategies and related database exports as code/scripts and data, librarians and information professionals can expand the mandate of research data management (RDM) infrastructure to include this work. This new initiative aimed to create a space in McGill University's institutional data repository for our librarians to deposit and share their search strategies for knowledge syntheses (KS). Case Presentation: The authors, a health sciences librarian and an RDM specialist, created a repository collection of librarian-authored knowledge synthesis (KS) searches in McGill University's Borealis Dataverse collection. We developed and hosted a half-day "Dataverse-a-thon" where we worked with a team of health sciences librarians to develop a standardized KS data management plan (DMP), search reporting documentation, Dataverse software training, and howto guidance for the repository. Conclusion: In addition to better documentation and tracking of KS searches at our institution, the KS Dataverse collection enables sharing of searches among colleagues with discoverable metadata fields for searching within deposited searches. While the initial creation of the DMP and documentation took about six hours, the subsequent deposit of search strategies into the institutional data repository requires minimal effort (e.g., 5-10 minutes on average per deposit). The Dataverse collection also empowers librarians to retain intellectual ownership over search strategies as valuable stand-alone research outputs and raise the visibility of their labor. Overall, institutional data repositories provide specific benefits in facilitating compliance both with PRISMA-S guidance and with RDM best practices.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis Estimates the Minimal Detectable Change of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15.

OBJECTIVE: 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 (SEM). 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: 5,876 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Mental health of Canadian youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining changes in depression, anxiety, and suicide-related outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to describe Canadian youth mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms and suicidality. METHODS: We searched four databases up to February 2023 for longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional studies reporting on changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms, suicidality, or related services utilization among young people under 25 years old residing in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for studies comparing depressive and anxiety symptoms from before to during the first, second, and third COVID-19 waves (up to June 2021), and between COVID-19 waves. Other studies were described narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. SYNTHESIS: Of the 7916 records screened, 35 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. Included studies were highly heterogeneous in design, population, and type of change investigated, and many had a high risk of bias. The meta-analyses found that depressive symptoms worsened minimally from pre-pandemic to wave 1 but returned to pre-pandemic levels by wave 2. Anxiety symptoms were broadly comparable from pre-pandemic to waves 1 and 2 but worsened from waves 1 to 3 and from pre-pandemic to wave 1 for girls. The narrative review included several studies that provided inconclusive evidence of increases in services utilization. CONCLUSION: The current evidence is limited and highly heterogeneous, making it insufficient to draw definitive conclusions regarding the short- to medium-term impact of the pandemic on youth mental health in Canada. Obtaining better mental health surveillance among Canadian youth is imperative.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Cette revue systématique et méta-analyse vise à décrire la santé mentale des jeunes Canadiens pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 en ce qui concerne les changements dans les symptômes d'anxiété et de dépression et la suicidalité. MéTHODES: Nous avons cherché dans quatre bases de données, jusqu'en février 2023, des études longitudinales ou transversales répétées portant sur l'évolution des symptômes dépressifs et anxieux, de la suicidalité ou de l'utilisation des services en santé mentale chez les jeunes de moins de 25 ans résidant au Canada pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires ont été réalisées pour les études comparant les symptômes dépressifs et anxieux avant et pendant les première, deuxième et troisième vagues du COVID-19 (jusqu'en juin 2021), ainsi qu'entre les vagues de COVID-19. Les autres études ont été décrites de manière narrative. Le risque de biais a été évalué à l'aide d'une liste de contrôle adaptée du Joanna Briggs Institute. SYNTHèSE: Sur les 7 916 dossiers examinés, 35 articles répondaient aux critères d'inclusion de la présente étude. Les études retenues sont très hétérogènes en termes de conception, de population et de type de changement étudié, et un grand nombre d'entre elles présentent un risque élevé de biais. Les méta-analyses révèlent que les symptômes dépressifs se sont légèrement aggravés entre la période prépandémique et la première vague, mais qu'ils sont revenus aux niveaux prépandémiques lors de la deuxième vague. Les symptômes d'anxiété sont globalement comparables entre la période prépandémique et les vagues 1 et 2, mais se sont aggravés entre les vagues 1 et 3 et entre la période prépandémique et la vague 1 pour les filles. La revue narrative porte sur plusieurs études qui ont fourni des preuves non concluantes de l'augmentation de l'utilisation des services en santé mentale. CONCLUSION: Les données actuelles sont limitées et très hétérogènes, ce qui ne permet pas de tirer des conclusions définitives quant à l'impact à court et moyen terme de la pandémie sur la santé mentale des jeunes au Canada. Il est impératif d'améliorer la surveillance de la santé mentale des jeunes Canadiens.

Adverse childhood experience is associated with an increased risk of reporting chronic pain in adulthood: a stystematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have been shown to negatively affect health in adulthood. Estimates of associations between ACEs and chronic painful conditions are lacking.Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate associations between exposure to ACEs and chronic pain and pain-related disability in adults.Methods: We searched 10 electronic databases from inception to February 2023. We included observational studies assessing associations between direct ACEs (childhood sexual, physical, emotional abuse, or neglect) alone or in combination with indirect ACEs (witnessing domestic violence, household mental illness), and adult chronic pain (≥3 months duration) and pain-related disability (daily activities limited by chronic pain). Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled adjusted odds ratios [aOR]. Tau square [T2], 95% prediction intervals [95%PI] and I2 expressed the amount of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions and subgroup meta-analyses investigated sources of heterogeneity (PROSPERO: CRD42020150230).Results: We identified 85 studies including 826,452 adults of which 57 studies were included in meta-analyses. Study quality was generally good or fair (n = 70). The odds of reporting chronic pain in adulthood were significantly higher among individuals exposed to a direct ACE (aOR, 1.45, 95%CI, 1.38-1.53). Individuals reporting childhood physical abuse were significantly more likely to report both chronic pain (aOR, 1.50, 95CI, 1.39-1.64) and pain-related disability (1.46, 95CI, 1.03-2.08) during adulthood. Exposure to any ACEs alone or combined with indirect ACEs significantly increase the odds of adult chronic painful conditions (aOR, 1.53, 95%CI, 1.42-1.65) and pain-related disability (aOR, 1.29; 95%CI, 1.01-1.66). The risk of chronic pain in adulthood significantly increased from one ACE (aOR, 1.29, 95%CI, 1.22-1.37) to four or more ACEs (1.95, 95%CI, 1.73-2.19).Conclusions: Single and cumulative ACEs are significantly associated with reporting of chronic pain and pain-related disability as an adult.

Previous meta-analyses highlighted the negative impact of adverse childhood experiences on physical, psychological, and behavioural health across the lifespan.We found exposure to any direct adverse childhood experience, i.e. childhood sexual, physical, emotional abuse, or neglect alone or combined, increased the risk of reporting chronic pain and pain-related disability in adulthood.The risk of reporting chronic painful disorders increased with increasing numbers of adverse childhood experiences.

Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence in submissions.

With the arrival of ChatGPT, the academic community has expressed concerns about how generative artificial intelligence will be used by students and researchers alike. After consulting policies from other journals and discussing among the editorial team, we have created a policy on the use of AI on submissions to JMLA. This editorial provides a brief background on these concerns and introduces our policy.

Domains of professional practice: analysis of publications in the Journal of the Medical Library Association from 2010 to 2019.

The Medical Library Association (MLA) has defined 7 domain hubs aligning to different areas of information professional practice. To assess the extent to which content in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is reflective of these domains, we analyzed the magnitude of JMLA articles aligning to each domain hub over the last 10 years. Bibliographic records for 453 articles published in JMLA from 2010 to 2019 were downloaded from Web of Science and screened using Covidence software. Thirteen articles were excluded during the title and abstract review because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in 440 articles included in this review. The title and abstract of each article were screened by two reviewers, each of whom assigned the article up to two tags corresponding to MLA domain hubs (i.e., information services, information management, education, professionalism and leadership, innovation and research practice, clinical support, and health equity & global health). These results inform the MLA community about our strengths in health information professional practice as reflected by articles published in JMLA.

Looking back, looking forward.

The second half of 2022 was a time of much change at the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). We hope to lead this journal with transparency, and in this spirit, we wanted to give you an overview of what we have done since we were appointed as co-editors in chief (co-EICs) in June 2022.

Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting. RESULTS: Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies. CONCLUSION: Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item.

Item 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of δ = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.Trial registration: The original IPDMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015024785).

Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise results of mental health outcomes in cohorts before and during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Open Science Framework Preprints. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies comparing general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms assessed from 1 January 2020 or later with outcomes collected from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 in any population, and comprising ≥90% of the same participants before and during the covid-19 pandemic or using statistical methods to account for missing data. Restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analyses (worse covid-19 outcomes representing positive change) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. RESULTS: As of 11 April 2022, 94 411 unique titles and abstracts including 137 unique studies from 134 cohorts were reviewed. Most of the studies were from high income (n=105, 77%) or upper middle income (n=28, 20%) countries. Among general population studies, no changes were found for general mental health (standardised mean difference (SMD)change 0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.00 to 0.22) or anxiety symptoms (0.05, -0.04 to 0.13), but depression symptoms worsened minimally (0.12, 0.01 to 0.24). Among women or female participants, general mental health (0.22, 0.08 to 0.35), anxiety symptoms (0.20, 0.12 to 0.29), and depression symptoms (0.22, 0.05 to 0.40) worsened by minimal to small amounts. In 27 other analyses across outcome domains among subgroups other than women or female participants, five analyses suggested that symptoms worsened by minimal or small amounts, and two suggested minimal or small improvements. No other subgroup experienced changes across all outcome domains. In three studies with data from March to April 2020 and late 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-covid-19 levels at both assessments or increased initially then returned to pre-covid-19 levels. Substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias were present across analyses. CONCLUSIONS: High risk of bias in many studies and substantial heterogeneity suggest caution in interpreting results. Nonetheless, most symptom change estimates for general mental health, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant, and significant changes were of minimal to small magnitudes. Small negative changes occurred for women or female participants in all domains. The authors will update the results of this systematic review as more evidence accrues, with study results posted online (https://www.depressd.ca/covid-19-mental-health). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179703.

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Systematic review of mental health symptom changes by sex or gender in early-COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic.

Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09-0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = - 0.10, 95% CI -0.21-0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12-0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.20-0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03-0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.09-0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI - 0.10-0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

Effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effects of mental health interventions among people hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019 to June 28, 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials assessed interventions among hospitalized COVID-19 patients that targeted mental health symptoms. Due to the poor quality of trials, we sought to verify accuracy of trial reports including results. RESULTS: We identified 47 randomized controlled trials from China (N = 42), Iran (N = 4) and Turkey (N = 1) of which 21 tested the efficacy of psychological interventions, 5 physical and breathing exercises, and 21 a combination of interventions. Trial information could only be verified for 3 trials of psychological interventions (cognitive behavioral, guided imagery, multicomponent online), and these were the only trials with low risk of bias on at least 4 of 7 domains. Results could not be pooled or interpreted with confidence due to the degree of poor reporting and trial quality, the frequency of what were deemed implausibly large effects, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Trials of interventions to address mental health in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, collectively, are not of sufficient quality to inform practice. Health care providers should refer to existing expert recommendations and standard hospital-based practices. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020179703); registered on April 17, 2020.

Effects of COVID-19 Mental Health Interventions Among Children, Adolescents, and Adults Not Quarantined or Undergoing Treatment Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to assess the effects of mental health interventions for children, adolescents, and adults not quarantined or undergoing treatment due to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We searched 9 databases (2 Chinese-language) from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of interventions to address COVID-19 mental health challenges among people not hospitalised or quarantined due to COVID-19 infection. We synthesized results descriptively due to substantial heterogeneity of populations and interventions and risk of bias concerns. RESULTS: We identified 9 eligible trials, including 3 well-conducted, well-reported trials that tested interventions designed specifically for COVID-19 mental health challenges, plus 6 other trials with high risk of bias and reporting concerns, all of which tested standard interventions (e.g., individual or group therapy, expressive writing, mindfulness recordings) minimally adapted or not specifically adapted for COVID-19. Among the 3 well-conducted and reported trials, 1 (N = 670) found that a self-guided, internet-based cognitive-behavioural intervention targeting dysfunctional COVID-19 worry significantly reduced COVID-19 anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90) and depression symptoms (SMD 0.38, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.55) in Swedish general population participants. A lay-delivered telephone intervention for homebound older adults in the United States (N = 240) and a peer-moderated education and support intervention for people with a rare autoimmune condition from 12 countries (N = 172) significantly improved anxiety (SMD 0.35, 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.60; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.58) and depressive symptoms (SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; SMD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.55) 6-week post-intervention, but these were not significant immediately post-intervention. No trials in children or adolescents were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that adapt evidence-based strategies for feasible delivery may be effective to address mental health in COVID-19. More well-conducted trials, including for children and adolescents, are needed.

Creating a more inclusive journal: the Journal of the Medical Library Association's evolving process for selecting editorial board members.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) selects new editorial board members every year. In the spring of 2021, JMLA used a new process for reviewing and selecting applicants for the limited number of open editorial board positions. This reevaluation of the selection process was spurred by a desire to create a more diverse and representative board. Changes to the procedures for selecting new editorial board members included having an open call for editorial board members, creating an application form, creating a selection committee to screen applicants, creating a form for the selection committee to extract data from applications, and creating a two-step process for screening and then selecting board members. As part of construction of this new process, areas for continued improvement were also identified, such as refining the application form to allow more specific answers to areas of interest to the selection committee. The newly created selection process for editorial board members constitutes a significant change in JMLA processes; however, more can be done to build on this work by further refining the selection process and ensuring that new members are selected in a transparent and streamlined manner.

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.

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.

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. METHODS: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. RESULTS: 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was -21.1% to 19.5%. CONCLUSIONS: HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.

Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS: Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported "feelings consistent with postpartum depression" based on scores ≥7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 ≥7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). METHODS: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 ≥7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 ≥7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 ≥7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence.