6 results
Equivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis – ERRATUM
- Yin Wu, Brooke Levis, Kira E. Riehm, Nazanin Saadat, Alexander W. Levis, Marleine Azar, Danielle B. Rice, Jill Boruff, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P.A. Ioannidis, Lorie A. Kloda, Dean McMillan, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Dickens H. Akena, Bruce Arroll, Liat Ayalon, Hamid R. Baradaran, Murray Baron, Charles H. Bombardier, Peter Butterworth, Gregory Carter, Marcos H. Chagas, Juliana C. N. Chan, Rushina Cholera, Yeates Conwell, Janneke M. de Manvan Ginkel, Jesse R. Fann, Felix H. Fischer, Daniel Fung, Bizu Gelaye, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Catherine G. Greeno, Brian J. Hall, Patricia A. Harrison, Martin Härter, Ulrich Hegerl, Leanne Hides, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Marie Hudson, Thomas Hyphantis, Masatoshi Inagaki, Nathalie Jetté, Mohammad E. Khamseh, Kim M. Kiely, Yunxin Kwan, Femke Lamers, Shen-Ing Liu, Manote Lotrakul, Sonia R. Loureiro, Bernd Löwe, Anthony McGuire, Sherina Mohd-Sidik, Tiago N. Munhoz, Kumiko Muramatsu, Flávia L. Osório, Vikram Patel, Brian W. Pence, Philippe Persoons, Angelo Picardi, Katrin Reuter, Alasdair G. Rooney, Iná S. Santos, Juwita Shaaban, Abbey Sidebottom, Adam Simning, Lesley Stafford, Sharon Sung, Pei Lin Lynnette Tan, Alyna Turner, Henk C. van Weert, Jennifer White, Mary A. Whooley, Kirsty Winkley, Mitsuhiko Yamada, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 50 / Issue 16 / December 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 August 2019, p. 2816
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
Equivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
- Yin Wu, Brooke Levis, Kira E. Riehm, Nazanin Saadat, Alexander W. Levis, Marleine Azar, Danielle B. Rice, Jill Boruff, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P.A. Ioannidis, Lorie A. Kloda, Dean McMillan, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Dickens H. Akena, Bruce Arroll, Liat Ayalon, Hamid R. Baradaran, Murray Baron, Charles H. Bombardier, Peter Butterworth, Gregory Carter, Marcos H. Chagas, Juliana C. N. Chan, Rushina Cholera, Yeates Conwell, Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel, Jesse R. Fann, Felix H. Fischer, Daniel Fung, Bizu Gelaye, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Catherine G. Greeno, Brian J. Hall, Patricia A. Harrison, Martin Härter, Ulrich Hegerl, Leanne Hides, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Marie Hudson, Thomas Hyphantis, Masatoshi Inagaki, Nathalie Jetté, Mohammad E. Khamseh, Kim M. Kiely, Yunxin Kwan, Femke Lamers, Shen-Ing Liu, Manote Lotrakul, Sonia R. Loureiro, Bernd Löwe, Anthony McGuire, Sherina Mohd-Sidik, Tiago N. Munhoz, Kumiko Muramatsu, Flávia L. Osório, Vikram Patel, Brian W. Pence, Philippe Persoons, Angelo Picardi, Katrin Reuter, Alasdair G. Rooney, Iná S. Santos, Juwita Shaaban, Abbey Sidebottom, Adam Simning, Lesley Stafford, Sharon Sung, Pei Lin Lynnette Tan, Alyna Turner, Henk C. van Weert, Jennifer White, Mary A. Whooley, Kirsty Winkley, Mitsuhiko Yamada, Andrea Benedetti, Brett D. Thombs
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 50 / Issue 8 / June 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 July 2019, pp. 1368-1380
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background
Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.
MethodsWe conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.
Results16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).
ConclusionsPHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.
Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews
- Brooke Levis, Andrea Benedetti, Kira E. Riehm, Nazanin Saadat, Alexander W. Levis, Marleine Azar, Danielle B. Rice, Matthew J. Chiovitti, Tatiana A. Sanchez, Pim Cuijpers, Simon Gilbody, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lorie A. Kloda, Dean McMillan, Scott B. Patten, Ian Shrier, Russell J. Steele, Roy C. Ziegelstein, Dickens H. Akena, Bruce Arroll, Liat Ayalon, Hamid R. Baradaran, Murray Baron, Anna Beraldi, Charles H. Bombardier, Peter Butterworth, Gregory Carter, Marcos H. Chagas, Juliana C. N. Chan, Rushina Cholera, Neerja Chowdhary, Kerrie Clover, Yeates Conwell, Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel, Jaime Delgadillo, Jesse R. Fann, Felix H. Fischer, Benjamin Fischler, Daniel Fung, Bizu Gelaye, Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Catherine G. Greeno, Brian J. Hall, John Hambridge, Patricia A. Harrison, Ulrich Hegerl, Leanne Hides, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Marie Hudson, Thomas Hyphantis, Masatoshi Inagaki, Khalida Ismail, Nathalie Jetté, Mohammad E. Khamseh, Kim M. Kiely, Femke Lamers, Shen-Ing Liu, Manote Lotrakul, Sonia R. Loureiro, Bernd Löwe, Laura Marsh, Anthony McGuire, Sherina Mohd Sidik, Tiago N. Munhoz, Kumiko Muramatsu, Flávia L. Osório, Vikram Patel, Brian W. Pence, Philippe Persoons, Angelo Picardi, Alasdair G. Rooney, Iná S. Santos, Juwita Shaaban, Abbey Sidebottom, Adam Simning, Lesley Stafford, Sharon Sung, Pei Lin Lynnette Tan, Alyna Turner, Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis, Henk C. van Weert, Paul A. Vöhringer, Jennifer White, Mary A. Whooley, Kirsty Winkley, Mitsuhiko Yamada, Yuying Zhang, Brett D. Thombs
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 212 / Issue 6 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 May 2018, pp. 377-385
- Print publication:
- June 2018
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.
AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.
MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.
ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15–3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98–10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7–15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56–1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26–0.97).
ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.
Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Assessment of Everyday Memory in Rehabilitation Settings: A Review of the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test
- Brian E. McGuire
-
- Journal:
- The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / 1997
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 August 2015, pp. 79-85
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) is reviewed and its utility in rehabilitation settings is explored. The RBMT purports to be “ecologically valid” — a test of everyday memory. It is concluded that the RBMT is quick and easy to administer, is available to a range of health professionals, and has high face validity as a measure of everyday memory performance. However, the normative sample obtained was relatively small, limited age-norms were provided, it did not assess incremental learning and there was a tendency to obtain a ceiling effect in non-clinical groups. Additional normative data have been reported by others. The RBMT is most likely to be useful in acute rehabilitation or with more impaired clinical groups and is recommended as a useful tool for the assessment of memory impairment.
Contributors
-
- By Ghazi Al-Rawas, Vazken Andréassian, Tianqi Ao, Stacey A. Archfield, Berit Arheimer, András Bárdossy, Trent Biggs, Günter Blöschl, Theresa Blume, Marco Borga, Helge Bormann, Gianluca Botter, Tom Brown, Donald H. Burn, Sean K. Carey, Attilio Castellarin, Francis Chiew, François Colin, Paulin Coulibaly, Armand Crabit, Barry Croke, Siegfried Demuth, Qingyun Duan, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Thomas Dunne, Ying Fan, Xing Fang, Boris Gartsman, Alexander Gelfan, Mikhail Georgievski, Nick van de Giesen, David C. Goodrich, Hoshin V. Gupta, Khaled Haddad, David M. Hannah, H. A. P. Hapuarachchi, Hege Hisdal, Kamila Hlavčová, Markus Hrachowitz, Denis A. Hughes, Günter Humer, Ruud Hurkmans, Vito Iacobellis, Elena Ilyichyova, Hiroshi Ishidaira, Graham Jewitt, Shaofeng Jia, Jeffrey R. Kennedy, Anthony S. Kiem, Robert Kirnbauer, Thomas R. Kjeldsen, Jürgen Komma, Leonid M. Korytny, Charles N. Kroll, George Kuczera, Gregor Laaha, Henny A. J. van Lanen, Hjalmar Laudon, Jens Liebe, Shijun Lin, Göran Lindström, Suxia Liu, Jun Magome, Danny G. Marks, Dominic Mazvimavi, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, Brian L. McGlynn, Kevin J. McGuire, Neil McIntyre, Thomas A. McMahon, Ralf Merz, Robert A. Metcalfe, Alberto Montanari, David Morris, Roger Moussa, Lakshman Nandagiri, Thomas Nester, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda, Ludovic Oudin, Juraj Parajka, Charles S. Pearson, Murray C. Peel, Charles Perrin, John W. Pomeroy, David A. Post, Ataur Rahman, Liliang Ren, Magdalena Rogger, Dan Rosbjerg, José Luis Salinas, Jos Samuel, Eric Sauquet, Hubert H. G. Savenije, Takahiro Sayama, John C. Schaake, Kevin Shook, Murugesu Sivapalan, Jon Olav Skøien, Chris Soulsby, Christopher Spence, R. ‘Sri’ Srikanthan, Tammo S. Steenhuis, Jan Szolgay, Yasuto Tachikawa, Kuniyoshi Takeuchi, Lena M. Tallaksen, Dörthe Tetzlaff, Sally E. Thompson, Elena Toth, Peter A. Troch, Remko Uijlenhoet, Carl L. Unkrich, Alberto Viglione, Neil R. Viney, Richard M. Vogel, Thorsten Wagener, M. Todd Walter, Guoqiang Wang, Markus Weiler, Rolf Weingartner, Erwin Weinmann, Hessel Winsemius, Ross A. Woods, Dawen Yang, Chihiro Yoshimura, Andy Young, Gordon Young, Erwin Zehe, Yongqiang Zhang, Maichun C. Zhou
- Edited by Günter Blöschl, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Murugesu Sivapalan, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Thorsten Wagener, University of Bristol, Alberto Viglione, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Hubert Savenije, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 18 April 2013, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Joanne R. Adler, David A. Alexander, Laurence Alison, Catherine C. Ayoub, Peter Banister, Anthony R. Beech, Amanda Biggs, Julian Boon, Adrian Bowers, Neil Brewer, Eric Broekaert, Paula Brough, Jennifer M. Brown, Kevin Browne, Elizabeth A. Campbell, David Canter, Michael Carlin, Shihning Chou, Martin A. Conway, Claire Cooke, David Cooke, Ilse Derluyn, Robert J. Edelmann, Vincent Egan, Tom Ellis, Marie Eyre, David P. Farrington, Seena Fazel, Daniel B. Fishman, Victoria Follette, Katarina Fritzon, Elizabeth Gilchrist, Nathan D. Gillard, Renée Gobeil, Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Lynsey Gozna, Don Grubin, Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, Guy Hall, Nathan Hall, Roisin Hall, Sean Hammond, Leigh Harkins, Grant T. Harris, Camilla Herbert, Robert D. Hoge, Todd E. Hogue, Clive R. Hollin, Lorraine Hope, Miranda A. H. Horvath, Kevin Howells, Carol A. Ireland, Jane L. Ireland, Mark Kebbell, Michael King, Bruce D. Kirkcaldy, Heidi La Bash, Cara Laney, William R. Lindsay, Elizabeth F. Loftus, L. E. Marshall, W. L. Marshall, James McGuire, Neil McKeganey, T. M. McMillan, Mary McMurran, Joav Merrick, Becky Milne, Joanne M. Nadkarni, Claire Nee, M. D. O’Brien, William O’Donohue, Darragh O’Neill, Jane Palmer, Adria Pearson, Derek Perkins, Devon L. L. Polaschek, Louise E. Porter, Charlotte C. Powell, Graham E. Powell, Martine Powell, Christine Puckering, Ethel Quayle, Vernon L. Quinsey, Marnie E. Rice, Randall Richardson-Vejlgaard, Richard Rogers, Louis B Schlesinger, Carolyn Semmler, G. A. Serran, Ralph C. Serin, John L. Taylor, Max Taylor, Brian Thomas-Peter, Paul A. Tiffin, Graham Towl, Rosie Travers, Arlene Vetere, Graham Wagstaff, Helen Wakeling, Fiona Warren, Brandon C. Welsh, David Wexler, Margaret Wilson, Dan Yarmey, Susan Young
- Edited by Jennifer M. Brown, London School of Economics and Political Science, Elizabeth A. Campbell, University of Glasgow
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Published online:
- 06 July 2010
- Print publication:
- 29 April 2010, pp xix-xxiii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation