Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Three previous meta-analyses reported that, compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID), alternative reference standards, primarily the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), tended to misclassify major depression status, when controlling for depression symptom severity. However, there was an important lack of precision in the results.

The goal of this study was to compare the odds of the classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. The studyincluded and standardized data from three individual participant meta-analyses (IPDMAs) databases.

In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major ) from 212 studies were included. Controlling for symptom severity and participant characteristics, the MINI (74 studies; 25,749 participants) classified major depression more often than the SCID (108 studies; 21,953 participants; aOR 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.92]). Classification odds for the CIDI (30 studies; 21,703 participants) and the SCID did not differ overall (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 0.79–1.75); however, as screening scores increased, the aOR increased less for the CIDI than the SCID (interaction aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52–0.80).

Compared to the SCID, the MINI classified major depression more often. The odds of the depression classification with the CIDI increased less as symptom levels increased. Interpretation of research that uses diagnostic interviews to classify depression should consider the characteristics.

More information: Yin Wu et al. Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (2020). DOI: 10.1159/000509283

Journal information: Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Provided by Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics