Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Scott B Patten 11, Ian Shrier 12, Roy C Ziegelstein 13, Melissa Henry 3, Zahinoor Ismail 14, Carmen G Loiselle 15, Nicholas D Mitchell 16, Marcello Tonelli 17, Samir Al-Adawi 18, Anna Beraldi 19, Anna P B M Braeken 20, Natalie Büel-Drabe 21, Adomas Bunevicius 22, Gregory Carter 23, Chih-Ken Chen 24, Gary Cheung 25, Kerrie Clover 26, Ronán M Conroy 27, Daniel Cukor 28, Carlos E da Rocha E Silva 29, Eli Dabscheck 30, Federico M Daray 31, Elles Douven 32, Marina G Downing 33, Anthony Feinstein 34, Panagiotis P Ferentinos 35, Felix H Fischer 36, Alastair J Flint 37, Maiko Fujimori 38, Pamela Gallagher 39, Milena Gandy 40, Simone Goebel 41, Luigi Grassi 42, Martin Härter 43, Josef Jenewein 44, Nathalie Jetté 45, Miguel Julião 46, Jae-Min Kim 47, Sung-Wan Kim 48, Marie Kjærgaard 49, Sebastian Köhler 50, Wim L Loosman 51, Bernd Löwe 52, Rocio Martin-Santos 53, Loreto Massardo 54, Yutaka Matsuoka 55, Anja Mehnert 56, Ioannis Michopoulos 57, Laurent Misery 58, Ricard Navines 53, Meaghan L O'Donnell 59, Ahmet Öztür...

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)


Objective: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Methods: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. Results: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Conclusion: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.

Original languageEnglish
Article number109892
JournalJournal of Psychosomatic Research
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020
Externally publishedYes


  • Depressive disorders
  • Diagnostic interviews
  • Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
  • Individual participant data meta-analysis
  • Major depression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this