0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessThe 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).
Yin Wu, Brooke Levis, Federico M. Daray, John P A Ioannidis, Scott B. Patten, Pim Cuijpers, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Simon Gilbody, Felix Fischer, Suiqiong Fan, Ying Sun, Chen He, Ankur Krishnan, Dipika Neupane, Parash Mani Bhandari, Zelalem Negeri, Kira E. Riehm, Danielle B. Rice, Marleine Azar, Xin Wei Yan, Mahrukh Imran, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Jill Boruff, Dean McMillan, Lorie A. Kloda, Sarah Markham, Mélissa Henry, Zahinoor Ismail, Carmen G. Loiselle, Nicholas Mitchell, Samir Al‐Adawi, Kevin Roy Beck, Anna Beraldi, Çharles N. Bernstein, Birgitte Boye, Natalie Büel-Drabe, Adomas Bunevičius, Ceyhun Can, Gregory Carter, Chih‐Ken Chen, Gary Cheung, Kerrie Clover, Ronán Conroy, Gema Costa‐Requena, Daniel Cukor, Eli Dabscheck, Jennifer De Souza, Marina G. Downing, Anthony Feinstein, Panagiotis Ferentinos, Alastair J. Flint, Pamela Gallagher, Milena Gandy, Luigi Grassi, Martin Härter, Asunción Hernando, Melinda L. Jackson, Josef Jenewein, Nathalie Jetté, Miguel Julião, Marie Kjærgaard, Sebastian Köhler, Hans‐Helmut König, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna, Yu Lee, Margrit Löbner, Wim L Loosman, Anthony W. Love, Bernd Löwe, Ulrik Fredrik Malt, Ruth Ann Marrie, Loreto Massardo, Yutaka Matsuoka, Anja Mehnert, Ioannis Michopoulos, L. Misery, Christian J. Nelson, Chong Guan Ng, Meaghan O’Donnell, Suzanne O’Rourke, Ahmet Öztürk, Alexander Pabst, Julie A. Pasco, Jūratė Pečeliūnienė, Luís Pintor, Jennie Ponsford, Federico Pulido, Terence J. Quinn, Silje Endresen Rème, Katrin Reuter, Steffi G. Riedel‐Heller, Alasdair G Rooney, Roberto Sánchez, Rebecca M. Saracino, Melanie P. J. Schellekens, Martin Scherer, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs, et al (2023). 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.. , 35(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001181.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2023
Authors
99
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001181
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access
