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

Verified authors • Institutional access • DOI aware
50,000+ researchers120,000+ datasets90% satisfaction
Article
en
2023

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

0 Datasets

0 Files

en
2023
Vol 13 (1)
Vol. 13
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w

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
Xia Qiu
Yin Wu
Ying Sun
+70 more

Abstract

Abstract 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).

How to cite this publication

Xia Qiu, Yin Wu, Ying Sun, Brooke Levis, Jizhou Tian, Jill Boruff, Pim Cuijpers, John P. A. Ioannidis, Sarah Markham, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Simone N. Vigod, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs, Chen He, Ankur Krishnan, Parash Mani Bhandari, Dipika Neupane, Zelalem Negeri, Mahrukh Imran, Danielle B. Rice, Marleine Azar, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Simon Gilbody, Lorie A. Kloda, Scott B. Patten, Nicholas Mitchell, Rubén Alvarado, Jacqueline Barnes, Cheryl Tatano Beck, Carola Bindt, Humberto Corrêa, Tiago Castro e Couto, Genesis Chorwe‐Sungani, Valsamma Eapen, Nicolas Favez, Ethel Felice, Gracia Fellmeth, Michelle Fernandes, Sally Field, Bárbara Figueiredo, Jane Fisher, Eric Green, Simone Honikman, Louise M. Howard, Pirjo Kettunen, Jane Kohlhoff, Zoltán Kozinszky, Angeliki Leonardou, Michael Maes, Pablo Martínez, Sandra Nakić Radoš, Daisuke Nishi, Susan Pawlby, Tamsen Rochat, Heather Rowe, Debbie Sharp, Alkistis Skalkidou, Johanne Smith‐Nielsen, Alan Stein, Kuan‐Pin Su, Inger Sundström Poromaa, Meri Tadinac, S. Darius Tandon, Iva Tendais, Annamária Töreki, Thach Tran, Kylee Trevillion, Katherine Turner, Mette Skovgaard Væver, Thandi van Heyningen, Johann M. Vega‐Dienstmaier, Karen Wynter, Kimberly A. Yonkers (2023). Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item. , 13(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w.

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

2023

Authors

73

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29114-w

Join Research Community

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

Get Free Access