4.7 Article

Affective syndromes and their screening in cancer patients with early and stable disease: Italian ICD-10 data and performance of the Distress Thermometer from the Southern European Psycho-Oncology Study (SEPOS)

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 114, 期 1-3, 页码 193-199

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.07.016

关键词

ICD-10 psychiatric morbidity; Distress; Thermometer; Screening; Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The assessment of mood and anxiety disorders secondary to cancer by using easy-to-administer instruments has been the object of recent research. Methods: The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of the short screening tool developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines For Distress Management, (0-10 point-scale Distress Thermometer) (DT) in detecting affective syndrome disorders in Italian cancer patients. The sample consisted of 109 cancer outpatients who were administered the ICD-10 psychiatric interview (CIDI), the DT and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). Results: Forty-four patients (40.40%) met the criteria for an ICD-10 diagnosis of affective syndromes. The DT was significantly associated with HADS-Total score (r = 0.66, p = 0.001). A cut-off >= 4 on the DT showed a sensitivity of 79.5% and a specificity of 75.4% (positive predictive value PPV = 68.6%; negative predictive value - NPV - 84.5%). The cut-off score >= 10 on the HADS was associated with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 81.5% (PPV -76%; NPV-89.9%). A cut-off score >= 5 on DT and >= 15 oil HADS maximized sensitivity (78.6% and 95%, respectively) and specificity (83.1% and 96%, respectively) for patients with more severe affective syndromes (major depression, persistent depressive disorders). Conclusions: The results Suggest that simple instruments call be used as feasible tools in the screening of mood and anxiety disorders among cancer patients. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据