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. 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

Verified authors • Institutional access • DOI aware
50,000+ researchers120,000+ datasets90% satisfaction
Article
en
2019

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

0 Datasets

0 Files

en
2019
Vol 28 (4)
Vol. 28
DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1803

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.
Michael Maes
Michael Maes

University Of Electronic Science & Technology Of China

Verified
Brooke Levis
Dean McMillan
Ying Sun
+81 more

Abstract

Abstract Objectives A previous individual participant data meta‐analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.

How to cite this publication

Brooke Levis, Dean McMillan, Ying Sun, Chen He, Danielle B. Rice, Ankur Krishnan, Yin Wu, Marleine Azar, Tatiana Sanchez, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Parash Mani Bhandari, Dipika Neupane, Nazanin Saadat, Kira E. Riehm, Mahrukh Imran, Jill Boruff, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lorie A. Kloda, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Liane Comeau, Nicholas Mitchell, Marcello Tonelli, Simone N. Vigod, Franca Aceti, Rubén Alvarado, Cosme Alvarado‐Esquivel, Muideen O. Bakare, Jacqueline Barnes, Cheryl Tatano Beck, Carola Bindt, Philip Boyce, Adomas Bunevičius, Tiago Castro e Couto, Linda H. Chaudron, Humberto Corrêa, Felipe Pinheiro de Figueiredo, Valsamma Eapen, Michelle Fernandes, Bárbara Figueiredo, Jane Fisher, Lluı̈sa Garcia-Esteve, Lisa Giardinelli, Nadine Helle, Louise M. Howard, Dina Sami Khalifa, Jane Kohlhoff, Laima Kusminskas, Zoltán Kozinszky, Lorenzo Lelli, Angeliki Leonardou, Beth A. Lewis, Michael Maes, Valentina Meuti, Sandra Nakić Radoš, Purificación Navarro García, Daisuke Nishi, Daniel Okitundu Luwa E‐Andjafono, Emma Robertson‐Blackmore, Tamsen Rochat, Heather Rowe, Bonnie W.M. Siu, Alkistis Skalkidou, Alan Stein, Robert C. Stewart, Kuan‐Pin Su, Inger Sundström Poromaa, Meri Tadinac, S. Darius Tandon, Iva Tendais, Pavaani Thiagayson, Annamária Töreki, A. Torres, Thach Tran, Kylee Trevillion, Katherine Turner, Johann M. Vega‐Dienstmaier, Karen Wynter, Kimberly A. Yonkers, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs (2019). 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. , 28(4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1803.

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

2019

Authors

84

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1803

Join Research Community

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

Get Free Access