ReviewHealth science reports2024
Depression detection in dementia: A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta analysis update.
Review in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Research Protocol to Develop a Prototype of a Music-Based Mobile Application to Improve Sleep in Persons Living With Dementia and Their Caregivers.Research in nursing & health · 2026Article
- Beyond AUC: Clinical interpretability of depression-MRI-machine learning analyses in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Identification of correlative factors and development of a preliminary classification model for delirium superimposed on dementia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Clinical Depression in the Last Year in Life in Persons Dying from Non-Cancer Conditions-Real World Data.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Predictors of Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer's Disease: A Longitudinal Bayesian Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Depression detection in dementia: A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta analysis update.Health science reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression is common in persons with dementia and is often under-detected and under-treated. It is critical to understand which available tools accurately detect depression in the context of dementia. Methods: We updated our systematic review completed in 2015. The search strategy of our original review was replicated in Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO. Studies describing the use of a tool to identify depression in persons with dementia, compared to a criterion standard, and reporting diagnostic accuracy outcomes were included in the review update. Pooled prevalence estimates of major depression and pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy outcomes (i.e., sensitivity [SN], specificity [SP]) for tools were calculated. Results: Three studies were included of the 8980 returned from the database search and were added to the prior 20 articles from the 2015 review. The Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)-15 item, Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Depression items (NPI-D), and Depression in Old Age Scale (DIA-S) were evaluated in the three studies. Two new studies were added to the existing pooled prevalence estimate of major depression (29%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 21.6%-36.5%, Conclusions: The CSDD continues to have the most evidence for depression case finding in persons living with dementia. The CSDD and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale have the highest sensitivities and may be recommended for use over other common tools like the GDS-15 and MADRS. Newly identified tools like the NPI-D and DIA-S require further study before they can be recommended for use in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.