ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0446-6898
Current Organisations
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital
,
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences
,
Harvard Medical School
,
Harvard University
,
Brigham and Women's Hospital
,
Columbia University Columbia College
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Related Links
Publications
Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta‐an
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-09-2019
DOI: 10.1002/MPR.1803
Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression subscale scores: An
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2020
DOI: 10.1016/J.JPSYCHORES.2019.109892
Abstract: Two previous in idual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.
Probability of Major Depression Classification Based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI Diagnostic Interviews: A Synthesis of Three Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses
Publisher: S. Karger AG
Date: 02-09-2031
DOI: 10.1159/000509283
Abstract: b i Introduction: /i /b Three previous in idual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) 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. b i Objective: /i /b To compare the odds of the major depression classification based on the SCID, CIDI, and MINI. b i Methods: /i /b We included and standardized data from 3 IPDMA databases. For each IPDMA, separately, we fitted binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of major depression classification, controlling for symptom severity and characteristics of participants, and the interaction between interview and symptom severity. Next, we synthesized results using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. b i Results: /i /b In total, 69,405 participants (7,574 [11%] with major depression) 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). b i Conclusions: /i /b 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 interview characteristics.
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
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 11-11-2020
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.M4022
Abstract: To evaluate the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression in pregnant and postpartum women. In idual participant data meta-analysis. Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from inception to 3 October 2018). Eligible datasets included EPDS scores and major depression classification based on validated diagnostic interviews. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate EPDS sensitivity and specificity compared with semi-structured, fully structured (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) excluded), and MINI diagnostic interviews separately using in idual participant data. One stage meta-regression was used to examine accuracy by reference standard categories and participant characteristics. In idual participant data were obtained from 58 of 83 eligible studies (70% 15 557 of 22 788 eligible participants (68%), 2069 with major depression). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximised at a cut-off value of 11 or higher across reference standards. Among studies with a semi-structured interview (36 studies, 9066 participants, 1330 with major depression), sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.90) and 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) for a cut-off value of 10 or higher, 0.81 (0.75 to 0.87) and 0.88 (0.85 to 0.91) for a cut-off value of 11 or higher, and 0.66 (0.58 to 0.74) and 0.95 (0.92 to 0.96) for a cut-off value of 13 or higher, respectively. Accuracy was similar across reference standards and subgroups, including for pregnant and postpartum women. An EPDS cut-off value of 11 or higher maximised combined sensitivity and specificity a cut-off value of 13 or higher was less sensitive but more specific. To identify pregnant and postpartum women with higher symptom levels, a cut-off of 13 or higher could be used. Lower cut-off values could be used if the intention is to avoid false negatives and identify most patients who meet diagnostic criteria. PROSPERO (CRD42015024785).
Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of radiation-induced meningiomas: a multiinstitutional study
Publisher: Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
Date: 09-2021
Abstract: Radiation-induced meningiomas (RIMs) are associated with aggressive clinical behavior. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is sometimes considered for selected RIMs. The authors investigated the effectiveness and safety of SRS for the management of RIMs. From 12 institutions participating in the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation, the authors pooled patients who had prior cranial irradiation and were subsequently clinically diagnosed with WHO grade I meningiomas that were managed with SRS. Fifty-two patients underwent 60 SRS procedures for histologically confirmed or radiologically suspected WHO grade I RIMs. The median ages at initial cranial radiation therapy and SRS for RIM were 5.5 years and 39 years, respectively. The most common reasons for cranial radiation therapy were leukemia (21%) and medulloblastoma (17%). There were 39 multiple RIMs (35%), the mean target volume was 8.61 ± 7.80 cm 3 , and the median prescription dose was 14 Gy. The median imaging follow-up duration was 48 months (range 4–195 months). RIM progressed in 9 patients (17%) at a median duration of 30 months (range 3–45 months) after SRS. Progression-free survival at 5 years post-SRS was 83%. Treatment volume ≥ 5 cm 3 predicted progression (HR 8.226, 95% CI 1.028–65.857, p = 0.047). Seven patients (14%) developed new neurological symptoms or experienced SRS-related complications or T2 signal change from 1 to 72 months after SRS. SRS is associated with durable local control of RIMs in the majority of patients and has an acceptable safety profile. SRS can be considered for patients and tumors that are deemed suboptimal, poor surgical candidates, and those whose tumor again progresses after removal.
Related Organisations
Hospital Of Lithuanian University Of Health Sciences Kaunas Clinics
Location: Lithuania
University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
Location: United States of America
Columbia University Columbia College
Location: United States of America
Related Funding Activities
No related grants have been discovered for Adomas Bunevicius.