A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validity of four screening scales for major depression in MS. | LitMetric

Validity of four screening scales for major depression in MS.

Mult Scler

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada/Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Published: July 2015

AI Article Synopsis

  • Brief assessment tools can help identify and manage major depression in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, but their effectiveness has rarely been validated against established diagnostic interviews.
  • A study was conducted with 152 MS patients to evaluate the performance of various scales (PHQ-9, PHQ-2, CES-D, HADS-D) compared to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) as the gold standard.
  • All scales showed high accuracy, with the PHQ-9 notably achieving 95% sensitivity and 88.3% specificity, suggesting it may be particularly useful due to its accessibility and concise format.

Article Abstract

Background: There is a role for brief assessment instruments in detection and management of major depression in MS. However, candidate scales have rarely been validated against a validated diagnostic interview. In this study, we evaluated the performance of several candidate scales: Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, PHQ-2, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression rating scale (CES-D), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) in relation to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID).

Methods: The sample was an unselected series of 152 patients attending a multiple sclerosis (MS) clinic. Participants completed the scales during a clinic visit or returned them by mail. The SCID was administered by telephone within two weeks. The diagnosis of major depressive episode, according to the SCID, was used as a reference standard. Receiver-operator curves (ROC) were fitted and indices of measurement accuracy were calculated.

Results: All of the scales performed well, each having an area under the ROC > 90%. For example, the PHQ-9 had 95% sensitivity and 88.3% specificity when scored with a cut-point of 11. This cut-point achieved a 56% positive predictive value for major depression.

Conclusions: While all of the scales performed well in terms of their sensitivity and specificity, the availability of the PHQ-9 in the public domain and its brevity may enhance the feasibility of its use.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458514559297DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

major depression
8
candidate scales
8
scales performed
8
performed well
8
scales
6
validity screening
4
screening scales
4
major
4
scales major
4
depression
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!