Article

A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in antepartum and postpartum women

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (Impact Factor: 4.86). 06/2009; 119(5):350-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01363.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is the most widely used screening tool for postpartum depression (PPD). We systematically reviewed the published evidence on its validity in detecting PPD and antepartum depression (APD) up to July 2008.
Systematic review of validation studies of the EPDS included 1987-2008. Cut-off points of 9/10 for possible PPD, 12/13 for probable PPD and 14/15 for APD were used.
Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Sensitivity and specificity of cut-off points showed marked heterogeneity between different studies. Sensitivity results ranged from 34 to 100% and specificity from 44 to 100%. Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 1.61 to 78.
Heterogeneity among study findings may be due to differences in study methodology, language and diagnostic interview/criteria used. Therefore, the results of different studies may not be directly comparable and the EPDS may not be an equally valid screening tool across all settings and contexts.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
123 Views
  • European Psychiatry 01/2013; 28:1. DOI:10.1016/S0924-9338(13)76004-8 · 3.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Relatively few studies have focused on the validation of psychometric scales measuring depression during pregnancy. The aim of this review was to critically appraise and review antenatal validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI, CINAHL, SCIELO and PsyCINFO for the period 1987-2013. Eleven validation studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design varied between studies. Sensitivity and specificity estimates also varied between 64-100% and 73-100%, respectively. The confidence interval estimates also showed a high degree of variability. Our estimates suggest lower positive predictive values in the general population than those reported in the validation study samples. The sensitivity values in validation studies of the EPDS show fairly large variability, ranging from good to acceptable. Future studies should have larger sample sizes and include both representative and clinical samples and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester. Due to differences in study design and variation in the cultural/linguistic adaptation, uncertainty remains regarding the comparability of the sensitivity and specificity estimates of different EPDS versions. Future studies should have larger sample sizes, include both representative and clinical samples, and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester. Reporting quality, especially as regards checks to ensure content validity, should be improved. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 01/2015; 176C:95-105. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.044 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
399 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014