Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions for the identification of depression: a diagnostic meta-analysis.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26656018.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008913 and PMC identifier 4679987.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions in the identification of depression; and, to examine the effect of an additional 'help' question. Systematic review with random effects bivariate diagnostic meta-analysis. Search strategies included electronic databases, examination of reference lists, and forward citation searches. Studies were included that provided sufficient data to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions against a gold standard diagnosis of major depression. Descriptive information, methodological quality criteria, and 2 × 2 contingency tables were extracted. Ten studies met inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) and pooled specificity was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.74). Heterogeneity was low (I(2)=24.1%). Primary care subgroup analysis gave broadly similar results. Four of the ten studies provided information on the effect of an additional help question. The addition of this question did not consistently improve specificity while retaining high sensitivity as reported in the original validation study. The two-item Whooley questions have high sensitivity and modest specificity in the detection of depression. The current evidence for the use of an additional help question is not consistent and there is, as yet, insufficient data to recommend its use for screening or case finding. CRD42014009695.
Medical subject headings
- Depression
- Psychiatric Status Rating Scales