Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the predictive validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycArticles databases was conducted using the following keywords: depression, perinatal-related terms, and EPDS. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in diagnostic studies.

Results

The search identified 823 articles, of which 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 1831 pregnant women from nine studies, pooled sensitivity and specificity of the EPDS were 0.81 and 0.87, respectively, with summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve of 0.90. In 515 postpartum women from six studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sROC were 0.79, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. We then compared the EPDS with other tools using three or more studies. The sROC curve of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was 0.74, which was lower than that (0.86) of the EPDS. The sROC curve of the Beck Depression Inventory and the ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was 0.91, similar to that of the EPDS (0.90 and 0.87). However, in comparison with the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (0.98), the sROC curve of the EPDS was 0.54.

Conclusion

As a tool specialized for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women, the EPDS showed excellent performance. Thus, the EPDS can be used in preference to other tools to screen for depression in perinatal women at a primary care setting or a midwifery center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Yes.

References

  1. Biaggi A, Conroy S, Pawlby S, Pariante CM (2016) Identifying the women at risk of antenatal anxiety and depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord 191:62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.014

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hay DF, Pawlby S, Waters CS, Sharp D (2008) Antepartum and postpartum exposure to maternal depression: different effects on different adolescent outcomes. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49:1079–1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01959.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kingston D, Kehler H, Austin MP et al (2018) Trajectories of maternal depressive symptoms during pregnancy and the first 12 months postpartum and child externalizing and internalizing behavior at three years. PLoS One 13(4):e0195365. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195365

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guintivano J, Manuck T, Meltzer-Brody S (2018) Predictors of postpartum depression: a comprehensive review of the last decade of evidence. Clin Obstet Gynecol 61(3):591–603. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000368

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leigh B, Milgrom J (2008) Risk factors for antenatal depression, postnatal depression and parenting stress. BMC Psychiatry 8(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-24

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. ACOG committee on practice bulletins-obstetrics (2018) ACOG Practice Bulletin: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists number 92, April 2008 (replaces practice bulletin number 87, November 2007) use of psychiatric medications during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol 111:1001–1020. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816fd910 (Reaffirmed Obstet Gynecol 131:185. Reaffirmed 2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stewart DE (2011) Clinical practice depression during pregnancy. N Engl J Med 365(17):1605–1611. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1102730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitelson E, Kim S, Baker AS, Leight K (2010) Treatment of postpartum depression: clinical, psychological and pharmacological options. Int J Womens Health 3:1–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S6938

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horowitz JA, Goodman JH (2005) Identifying and treating postpartum depression. JOGNN 34(2):264–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884217505274583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Szegedi A, Jansen WT, van Willigenburg AP, van der Meulen E, Stassen HH, Thase ME (2009) Early improvement in the first 2 weeks as a predictor of treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis including 6562 patients. J Clin Psychiatry 70(3):344–353. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.07m03780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ren Y, Yang H, Browning C, Thomas S, Liu M (2015) Performance of screening tools in detecting major depressive disorder among patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. Med Sci Monit 21:646–653. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.892537

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buist A, Bilszta J, Barnett B et al (2005) Recognition and management of perinatal depression in general practice: a survey of GPs and postnatal women. Aust Fam Phys 34:787–790

    Google Scholar 

  13. Callister LC, Beckstrand RL, Corbett C (2011) Postpartum depression and help-seeking behaviors in immigrant hispanic women. JOGNN 40(4):440–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. ACOG (2018) ACOG committee opinion no. 757 summary: screening for perinatal depression. Obstet Gynecol 132:1314–1316. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R (1987) Detection of postnatal depression. development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry 150:782–786. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.150.6.782

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rachel E (2015) Perinatal mental health: the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale, Manual 2nd edn. In: Cox J, Holden JM, Henshaw CM (eds) RCPsych, vol 25. Primary Health Care, London, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lyubenova A et al (2021) Depression prevalence based on the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale compared to structured clinical interview for DSM disorders classification: systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 30(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levis B, Yan XW, He C, Sun Y, Benedetti A, Thombs BD (2019) Comparison of depression prevalence estimates in meta-analyses based on screening tools and rating scales versus diagnostic interviews: a meta-research review. BMC Med 17(1):65–65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1297-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Levis B, Negeri A, Sun Y et al (2020) Accuracy of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ 371:m4022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4022

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Kloda LA et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) for detecting major depression in pregnant and postnatal women: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses. BMJ Open 5(10):e009742. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009742

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bossuyt PM, Davenport C, Deeks JJ et al. (2013) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. The cochrane training. https://training.cochrane.org/resource/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviews-diagnostic-test-accuracy. Accessed 15 May 2021

  22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Negeri ZF, Shaikh M, Beyene J (2018) Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis models for diagnostic test accuracy studies using arcsine-based transformations. Biom J 60:827–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A et al (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6(1):31–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-31

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel A, Cooper N, Freeman S et al (2021) Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Res Synth Methods 12:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A et al (2019) Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA. BMC Med Res Methodol 19:81

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD (2000) Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 45:23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(00)00115-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Walter SD (2002) Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 21:1237–1256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Matthey S, Souter K, Valenti B, Ross-Hamid C (2019) Validation of the MGMQ in screening for emotional difficulties in women during pregnancy. J Affect Disord 256:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.05.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Naja S, Al Kubaisi N, Chehab M, Al Dahshan A, Abuhashem N, Bougmiza I (2019) Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of EPDS and BDI-II as a screening tool for antenatal depression: evidence from Qatar. BMJ Open 9(9):e030365. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030365

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sasaki Y, Baba T, Oyama R, Fukumoto K, Haba G, Sasaki M (2019) Re-evaluation of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale as screening for post-partum depression in Iwate prefecture, Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 45(9):1876–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chorwe-Sungani G, Chipps J (2018) Validity and utility of instruments for screening of depression in women attending antenatal clinics in Blantyre district in Malawi. S Afr Fam Pract 60:114–120. https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v60i4.4888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Green EP, Tuli H, Kwobah E, Menya D, Chesire I, Schmidt C (2018) Developing and validating a perinatal depression screening tool in Kenya blending Western criteria with local idioms: a mixed methods study. J Affect Disord 228:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van Heyningen T, Honikman S, Tomlinson M, Field S, Myer L (2018) Comparison of mental health screening tools for detecting antenatal depression and anxiety disorders in South African women. PLoS One [Electronic Res] 13(4):e0193697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Castro CT, Martins Brancaglion MY, Nogueira CM, Bergo PA, Duarte GF, Nicolato R, Lopes PAR, Vitor LH, Correa H (2015) What is the best tool for screening antenatal depression? J Affect Disord 178:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gawlik S, Waldeier L, Muller M, Szabo A, Sohn C, Reck C (2013) Subclinical depressive symptoms during pregnancy and birth outcome–a pilot study in a healthy German sample. Arch Womens Ment Health 16(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-012-0320-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tandon SD, Cluxton-Keller F, Leis J, Le HN, Perry DFA (2012) Comparison of three screening tools to identify perinatal depression among low-income African American women. J Affect Disord 136(1–2):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fernandes MC, Srinivasan K, Stein AL, Menezes G, Sumithra R, Ramchandani PG (2011) Assessing prenatal depression in the rural developing world: a comparison of two screening measures. Arch Womens Ment Health 14(3):209–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-010-0190-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Flynn HA, Sexton M, Ratliff S, Porter K, Zivin K (2011) Comparative performance of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and the patient health questionnaire-9 in pregnant and postpartum women seeking psychiatric services. Psychiatry Res 187(1–2):130–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.10.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tran TD, Tran T, La B, Lee D, Rosenthal D, Fisher J (2011) Screening for perinatal common mental disorders in women in the North of Vietnam: a comparison of three psychometric instruments. J Affect Disord 133(1–2):281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tesfaye M, Hanlon C, Wondimagegn D, Alem A (2010) Detecting postnatal common mental disorders in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: validation of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and kessler scales. J Affect Disord 122(1–2):102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hanusa BH, Scholle SH, Haskett RF, Spadaro K, Wisner KL (2008) Screening for depression in the postpartum period: a comparison of three instruments. J Womens Health 17(4):585–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. White G. (2008) A comparison of the postpartum depression screening scale (PDSS) with the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS). New Zealand college of midwives journal 10(39):28–32. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A206107529/HRCA?u=anon~2d3f0f29&sid=googleScholar&xid=3b00c4bb. Accessed 7 Aug 2021

  45. Su KP, Chiu TH, Huang CL, Ho M, Lee CC, Wu PL, Lin CY, Liau CH, Liao CC, Chiu WC, Pariante CM (2007) Different cutoff points for different trimesters? the use of Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and beck depression inventory to screen for depression in pregnant Taiwanese women. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 29(5):436–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Beck CT, Gable RK (2001) Comparative analysis of the performance of the postpartum depression screening scale with two other depression instruments. Nurs Res 50(4):242–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200107000-00008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Payne JL (2016) Recent advances and controversies in peripartum depression. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5(3):250–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0167-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. O’Connor E, Rossom RC, Henninger M et al. (2016) Screening for depression in adults: an updated systematic evidence review for the US preventive services task force. evidence synthesis No. 128. AHRQ publication No. 14-05208-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for healthcare research and quality. http://lps3.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.libproxy.snu.ac.kr/books/NBK349027/?report=reader. Accessed 13 Nov 2021

  49. Nelson HD, Cantor A, Pappas M, Weeks C (2020) Screening for anxiety in adolescent and adult women: a systematic review for the women’s preventive services initiative. Ann Intern Med 173(1):29–41. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Reuland D, Cherrington A, Watkins GS, Bradford DW, Blanco RA, Gaynes BN (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of Spanish language depression-screening instruments. Ann Fam Med 7(5):455–462. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.981

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wang L, Kroenke K, Stump TM, Monahan PO (2021) Screening for perinatal depression with the patient health questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-9): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 68:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.12.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Beck CT, Gable RK (2000) Postpartum depression screening scale: development and psychometric testing. Nurs Res 49(5):272–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200009000-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fellmeth G, Harrison S, Opondo C, Nair M, Kurinczuk JJ, Alderdice F (2021) Validated screening tools to identify common mental disorders in perinatal and postpartum women in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 21(1):200–209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03190-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund. And this study was accomplished relating to searching causes of preterm birth by a grant by a grant (NRF 2019R1F1A104579912) of the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Republic of Korea. The funder had no further role in the conduct of the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors (SHP and JIK) contributed to the study’s conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis. Advanced analysis was performed by SHP. All authors have written the first draft of the manuscript and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeung-Im Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or any competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, SH., Kim, JI. Predictive validity of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale and other tools for screening depression in pregnant and postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307, 1331–1345 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06525-0

Keywords

Navigation