Nuestro objetivo fue comentar las diferencias metodológicas y aplicaciones de tres nuevos tipos de revisiones con especial atención a Latinoamérica. Entre estos nuevos tipos de revisiones tenemos a las revisiones de alcance, revisiones paraguas y síntesis enfocada en revisión de mapas. Las revisiones de alcance identifican la naturaleza y extensión de la evidencia, las revisiones paraguas se centran en la síntesis de todas las revisiones sistemáticas que abordan un mismo problema de salud, mientras que las síntesis enfocadas en la revisión de mapas son opciones válidas cuando resulta inviable un mapeo clásico de la evidencia, por abordar demasiados artículos. En la medida de que los investigadores en Latinoamérica se familiaricen con la metodología y utilidad de estos nuevos tipos de revisión, se observará un incremento de la producción científica.

Background The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain. Objective To assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults. Methods Until May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Results Twenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70–0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68–0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80–0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69–0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions. Conclusions We found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.

No abstract

Aim and Method To determine the effect on decisional-related and clinical outcomes of decision aids for depression treatment in adults in randomised clinical trials. In January 2019, a systematic search was conducted in five databases. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Meta-analyses were performed, and standardised and weighted mean differences were calculated, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated with GRADE methodology. Results Six randomised clinical trials were included. The pooled estimates showed that decision aids for depression treatment had a beneficial effect on patients’ decisional conflict, patient knowledge and information exchange between patient and health professional. However, no statistically significant effect was found for doctor facilitation, treatment adherence or depressive symptoms. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. Clinical implications Using decision aids to choose treatment in patients with depression may have a a beneficial effect on decisional-related outcomes, but it may not translate into an improvement in clinical outcomes.