Author, Year (Reference): Johnstone and Goldberg, 1976 (14)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Moore et al., 1978 (15)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 56 (28/50)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 22 (10/46)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 34 (16.7 to 52)
P Value2: < 0.001
Author, Year (Reference): Linn and Yager, 1980 (16)4
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 29 (7/24)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 8 (4/50)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 21 (1 to 41)
P Value2:
Author, Year (Reference): Zung and King, 1983 (17)5
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Magruder-Habib et al., 1990 (18)5
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 25 (12/48)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 8 (4/52)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 17 (3 to 32)
P Value2: 0.018
Author, Year (Reference): Callahan et al., 1994 (19)5
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 32 (32/100)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 12 (9/75)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 20 (8 to 32)
P Value2: 0.002
Author, Year (Reference): Callahan et al., 1996 (21)5
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 87 (111/128)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 40 (38/94)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 46 (35 to 58)
P Value2: 0.001
Author, Year (Reference): Dowrick, 1995 (20)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 35 (18/51)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 21 (13/63)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 15 (-2 to 31)
P Value2:
Author, Year (Reference): Lewis et al., 1996 (22)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Reifler et al., 1996 (23)
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Williams et al., 1999 (11)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 39 (30/77)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 29 (11/38)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 10 (-8 to 28)
P Value2: > 0.05
Author, Year (Reference): Katzelnick et al., 2000 (12)
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Wells et al., 2000 (24)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
Author, Year (Reference): Whooley et al., 2000 (25)3
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): 35 (56/162)
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): 34 (58/169)
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: 1 (-9 to 10)
P Value2: > 0.2
Author, Year (Reference): Rost et al., 2001 (13)
Participants with Diagnosis—Intervention Group, % (n/n): NR
Participants with Diagnosis—Control Group, % (n/n): NR
Absolute Difference (95% CI), percentage points: NR
P Value2: NR
1All figures are rounded to nearest value. NR = not reported and cannot be calculated from available data.
2P values were not always reported.
3Denominator is patients who screened positive.
4Denominator is all patients.
5Denominator is patients who screened positive and were confirmed to have major depression on diagnostic interview.