Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of classification methods used in primary studies synthesized in meta-analyses for each depression classification method category (N meta-analyses = 69; N extracted prevalence values = 81)

From: Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screening tools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: a meta-research review

 

N (%) Validated diagnostic interviews

N (%) Unstructured diagnostic interviews

N (%) Screening or rating tools

N (%) Other methods

N total

Diagnostic interviews only

(N = 8)

76 (72%)

29 (28%)

105 (100%)

Screening or rating tools only

(N = 36)

759 (100%)

759 (100%)

Combination of classification methods

(N = 37)

201 (16%)

57 (5%)

845 (69%)

127 (10%)

1230 (100%)

Total

277 (13%)

86 (4%)

1604 (77%)

127 (6%)

2094 (100%)

  1. Five meta-analysis abstracts reported depression prevalence based on diagnostic interviews plus based on screening or rating tools only, and seven meta-analysis abstracts reported depression prevalence based on a combination of classification methods plus based on screening or rating tools only