Depression prevalence of the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 was compared to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM using individual participant data meta-analysis is a research paper published in Scientific Reports (2024). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.416. It has been cited 15 times.
Depression questionnaire cutoffs are calibrated for screening accuracy and not to assess prevalence, but the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) is often used to estimate diagnostic prevalence among older adults, most commonly with scores of ≥ 5. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to compare depression prevalence based on GDS-15 ≥ 5 to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (SCID) diagnoses and assessed whether an alternative cutoff could be more accurate. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate prevalence. Data from 14 studies (3602 participants, 434 SCID major depression) were included. Pooled GDS-15 ≥ 5 prevalence was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.5-41.6%), and pooled SCID prevalence was 14.8% (95% CI 10.0-21.5%; difference of 17.6%, 95% CI 11.6-23.6%). GDS-15 ≥ 8 provided the closest estimate to SCID with mean difference of - 0.3% (95% prediction interval - 17.0-16.5%). Prevalence estimate differences were not associated with study or participant characteristics. In sum, GDS-15 ≥ 5 substantially overestimated depression prevalence. A cutoff of ≥ 8 was accurate overall, but heterogeneity was too high for implementation in practice. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to estimate major depression prevalence among older adults.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.416
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
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.