Figure 2. Meta-analysis of the effect of screening and feedback on the proportion of patients with persistent depression, excluding the Katzelnick trial(12) (Text Description)
Screening for Depression in Adults: Summary of the Evidence
A
Study: Zung
Screening n/N: 7/21
Usual Care n/N: 13/20
Weight %: 1.7
RR (95% CI Random): 0.51(0.26,1.02)
Study: Williams
Screening n/N: 56/153
Usual Care n/N: 30/65
Weight %: 6.4
RR (95% CI Random): 0.79(0.57,1.11)
Study: Whooley
Screening n/N: 41/97
Usual Care n/N: 54/109
Weight %: 7.8
RR (95% CI Random): 0.85(0.63,1.15)
Study: Wells
Screening n/N: 427/770
Usual Care n/N: 249/386
Weight %: 32.1
RR (95% CI Random): 0.86(0.78,0.95)
Study: Lewis
Screening n/N: 111/161
Usual Care n/N: 117/157
Weight %: 23.4
RR (95% CI Random): 0.93(0.81,1.06)
Study: Callahan
Screening n/N: 87/100
Usual Care n/N: 66/75
Weight %: 28.5
RR (95% CI Random): 0.99(0.88,1.11)
Total (95% CI)
Screening n/N: 729/1,302
Usual Care n/N: 529/812
Weight %: 100.0
RR (95% CI Random): 0.90(0.82,0.98)
Test for heterogeneity chi-square=7.94 df=6 p=0.16
B
Study: Zung
Screening n/N: 7/21
Usual Care n/N: 13/20
Weight %: 2.0
RR (95% CI Random): -0.32(-0.61,-0.03)
Study: Williams
Screening n/N: 56/153
Usual Care n/N: 30/65
Weight %: 8.1
RR (95% CI Random): -0.10(-0.24,0.05)
Study: Wells
Screening n/N: 427/770
Usual Care n/N: 249/386
Weight %: 47.1
RR (95% CI Random): -0.09(-0.15,-0.03)
Study: Whooley
Screening n/N: 41/97
Usual Care n/N: 54/109
Weight %: 9.0
RR (95% CI Random): -0.07(-0.21,-0.06)
Study: Lewis
Screening n/N: 111/161
Usual Care n/N: 117/157
Weight %: 17.0
RR (95% CI Random): -0.06(-0.15,-0.04)
Study: Callahan
Screening n/N: 87/100
Usual Care n/N: 66/75
Weight %: 17.0
RR (95% CI Random): -0.01(-0.11,-0.09)
Total (95% CI)
Screening n/N: 729/1,302
Usual Care n/N: 529/812
Weight %: 100.0
RR (95% CI Random): -0.07(-0.11,-0.03)
Test for heterogeneity chi-square=4.92 df=6 p=0.43