In a recent publication by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) in Psychological Medicine there are important errors that need to be corrected. These errors concern cited cut-off scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Holden and Sagovsky1987), as well as stating that in a paper of mine (Matthey et al. Reference Matthey, Barnett, Howie and Kavanagh2003) we used the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielbereger et al. Reference Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene1970), which we did not.
Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) state that in Matthey (Reference Matthey2004) I recommend postpartum scores on the EPDS of 9 or more (i.e. ⩾9) for possible depression and 12 or more (i.e. ⩾12) for probable depression. This is incorrect. In my paper I refer to scores of 10 or more (written as 9/10, which means 9 or less is ‘low’, 10 or more is ‘high’) and 13 or more (12/13). It is these scores, not the ones stated by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010), which are validated for the postpartum period for English-speaking women.
This error by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) is further compounded when they state that Murray & Cox (Reference Murray and Cox1990) showed that the antenatal cut-off scores on the EPDS were 12 or more (i.e. ⩾12) for possible depression and 14 or more (i.e. ⩾14) for probable depression. This again is incorrect. They recommended scores of 13 or more (12/13) and 15 or more (14/15) for the antenatal period (thus the validated cut-off scores are higher in pregnancy than postpartum).
The various validated cut-off scores on this scale, as well as the impact of such errors and ways to prevent them, have been discussed by myself and colleagues (Matthey et al. Reference Matthey, Henshaw, Elliott and Barnett2006).
Declaration of Interest
None.