Raw Data Library
About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User Guide
Green Science
​
​
EN
Sign inGet started
​
​

About
Aims and ScopeAdvisory Board Members
More
Who We Are?
User GuideGreen Science

Language

Sign inGet started
RDL logo

Verified research datasets. Instant access. Built for collaboration.

Navigation

About

Aims and Scope

Advisory Board Members

More

Who We Are?

Add Raw Data

User Guide

Legal

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Support

Got an issue? Email us directly.

Email: info@rawdatalibrary.netOpen Mail App
​
​

© 2025 Raw Data Library. All rights reserved.
PrivacyTerms
  1. Raw Data Library
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. An empirical comparison of three methods for multiple cutoff diagnostic test meta‐analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (<scp>PHQ</scp>‐9) depression screening tool using published data vs individual level data

Verified authors • Institutional access • DOI aware
50,000+ researchers120,000+ datasets90% satisfaction
Article
en
2020

An empirical comparison of three methods for multiple cutoff diagnostic test meta‐analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (<scp>PHQ</scp>‐9) depression screening tool using published data vs individual level data

0 Datasets

0 Files

en
2020
Vol 11 (6)
Vol. 11
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1443

Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.

Create free accountHow it works

Frequently asked questions

Is access really free for academics and students?

Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.

How is my data protected?

Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.

Can I request additional materials?

Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.

Advance your research today

Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.

Get free academic accessLearn more
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaboration
Access Research Data

Join our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.

Get Free Access
Institutional SSO
Secure
This PDF is not available in different languages.
No localized PDFs are currently available.
John P A Ioannidis
John P A Ioannidis

Stanford University

Verified
Andrea Benedetti
Brooke Levis
Gerta Rücker
+4 more

Abstract

Selective cutoff reporting in primary diagnostic accuracy studies with continuous or ordinal data may result in biased estimates when meta‐analyzing studies. Collecting individual participant data (IPD) and estimating accuracy across all relevant cutoffs for all studies can overcome such bias but is labour intensive. We meta‐analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9) depression screening tool. We compared results for two statistical methods proposed by Steinhauser and by Jones to account for missing cutoffs, with results from a series of bivariate random effects models (BRM) estimated separately at each cutoff. We applied the methods to a dataset that contained information only on cutoffs that were reported in the primary publications and to the full IPD dataset that contained information for all cutoffs for every study. For each method, we estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity and associated 95% confidence intervals for each cutoff and area under the curve (AUC). The full IPD dataset comprised data from 45 studies, 15 020 subjects, and 1972 cases of major depression and included information on every possible cutoff. When using data available in publications, using statistical approaches outperformed the BRM applied to the same data. AUC was similar for all approaches when using the full IPD dataset, though pooled estimates were slightly different. Overall, using statistical methods to fill in missing cutoff data recovered the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve from the full IPD dataset well when using only the published subset. All methods performed similarly when applied to the full IPD dataset.

How to cite this publication

Andrea Benedetti, Brooke Levis, Gerta Rücker, Hayley E. Jones, Martin Schumacher, John P A Ioannidis, Brett D. Thombs (2020). An empirical comparison of three methods for multiple cutoff diagnostic test meta‐analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (<scp>PHQ</scp>‐9) depression screening tool using published data vs individual level data. , 11(6), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1443.

Related publications

Why join Raw Data Library?

Quality

Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.

Control

Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.

Free for Academia

Students and faculty get instant access after verification.

Publication Details

Type

Article

Year

2020

Authors

7

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1443

Join Research Community

Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.

Get Free Access