4.3 Article

Validity of four screening scales for major depression in MS

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages 1064-1071

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458514559297

Keywords

Outcome measurement; quality of life; multiple sclerosis; symptomatic treatment

Funding

  1. Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust
  2. Hotchkiss Brain Institute
  3. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions studentship
  4. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions
  5. Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Neurological Health Services Research
  6. Cumming School of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available