Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM DIsorders classification: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis is a research paper published in International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (2020). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 2.4. It has been cited 60 times, with 48 citing works in its 1-hop citation network.
ObjectivesEstimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies.MethodsWe analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID.ResultsSeven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%-34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%-11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%-12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID-based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: -13.7%, 12.3%).ConclusionEPDS ≥14 approximated SCID-based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.617
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
1.8
From 39 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by citation count — the same ordering the engine uses when summing log1p(Cq) over citers.
DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 26% comes from its base citations and 74% from the citation network (39 citing papers contributed measurable signal).
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.
Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.