Skip to main content

Table 3 Prevalence estimates 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 included primary studies

N pooled participants

Pooled prevalence (%)

Diagnostic interviews only

(N = 8)

Median (range)

5 (2 to 49)

3093 (299 to 11,286)

15 (7 to 31)

Mean (SD)

13 (17)

4043 (3902)

17 (9)

Screening or rating tools only

(N = 36)

Median (range)

17 (2 to 81)

7236 (659 to 442,482)

30 (9 to 62)

Mean (SD)

21 (17)

27,487 (74,504)

31 (13)

Combination of classification methods

(N = 37)

Median (range)

21 (3 to 183)

19,468 (197 to 495,229)

23 (1 to 48)

Mean (SD)

33 (41)

47,361 (89,237)

22 (12)

  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
  2. Abbreviations: SD standard deviation