4.6 Article

Further evidence that the cutoff to define remission on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale should be lowered

Journal

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 160-166

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.20870

Keywords

depression; remission; Hamilton rating scale for depression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In 1991, the recommendations of a consensus conference were that a cutoff of 7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) be used to define remission from depression, and since then this has been the most commonly used definition of remission. The cutoff was not derived from empirical study. In the present report from the MIDAS project, we examined the level of current psychosocial morbidity in depressed patients identified as being in remission according to different thresholds on the 17-item HAM-D. Methods: We interviewed 274 depressed outpatients in ongoing treatment. The patients completed measures of depressive and anxious symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Results: Compared to patients scoring 3-7 on the HAM-D, patients scoring 0-2 had significantly lower levels of depression and anxiety on self-report symptom scales, better psychosocial functioning, better quality of life, and greater satisfaction with their mental health. Similar results were found comparing patients scoring 0-2 versus 3-5. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that significant heterogeneity exists among patients scoring 7 and below on the HAM-D. Whatever cutoff score is used to define remission on a symptom severity scale such as the HAM-D, some error will be inherent in dichotomizing a continuously distributed variable. We propose distinguishing between patients who are highly likely to be in remission (0-2 on the HAMD) from patients who are possibly in remission (scoring 3-7). Depression and Anxiety 29:159-165, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available