Diagnostic accuracy of the Geriatric Depression Scale-30, Geriatric Depression Scale-15, Geriatric Depression Scale-5 and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis is a research paper published in BMJ Open (2018). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 2.0. It has been cited 53 times, with 50 citing works in its 1-hop citation network.
IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.Prospero registration numberCRD42018104329.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.598
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
1.4
From 36 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 30% comes from its base citations and 70% from the citation network (36 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.