C J Hawley1, T M Gale, T Sivakumaran. 1. Department of Psychiatry, QEII Hospital, Hertfordshire AL7 4HQ, Welwyn Garden City, UK. c.l.hawley@herts.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remission from major depression may be conceptualised in terms of a cut-off score on an appropriate rating scale. Candidate values proposed hitherto have not been directly validated. METHOD: The relationship between The Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity (CGI-S) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was explored in 684 major depressed patients (1114 observations). The value on the MADRS which had greatest concordance with remission, as defined by the CGI-S, was computed using two models. Concordance between clinician and patient judgements of global illness were also compared. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The two models yielded optimal definitions of remission of <9 and <10 on the MADRS. Either value offers a workable operationalisation of remission and there is little to choose between them. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The data confirm that MADRS <10 should provide the clinician with a valid, and reasonably objectifiable, target for remission
BACKGROUND: Remission from major depression may be conceptualised in terms of a cut-off score on an appropriate rating scale. Candidate values proposed hitherto have not been directly validated. METHOD: The relationship between The Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity (CGI-S) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was explored in 684 major depressedpatients (1114 observations). The value on the MADRS which had greatest concordance with remission, as defined by the CGI-S, was computed using two models. Concordance between clinician and patient judgements of global illness were also compared. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The two models yielded optimal definitions of remission of <9 and <10 on the MADRS. Either value offers a workable operationalisation of remission and there is little to choose between them. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The data confirm that MADRS <10 should provide the clinician with a valid, and reasonably objectifiable, target for remission
Authors: A Brugnolo; F De Carli; J Accardo; M Amore; L E Bosia; C Bruzzaniti; S F Cappa; L Cocito; G Colazzo; M Ferrara; L Ghio; E Magi; G L Mancardi; F Nobili; M Pardini; R Rissotto; C Serrati; N Girtler Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Breanne Hobden; Melanie L Schwandt; Mariko Carey; Mary R Lee; Mehdi Farokhnia; Sofia Bouhlal; Christopher Oldmeadow; Lorenzo Leggio Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Chadi G Abdallah; Andrea Jackowski; Ramiro Salas; Swapnil Gupta; João R Sato; Xiangling Mao; Jeremy D Coplan; Dikoma C Shungu; Sanjay J Mathew Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Paul B Fitzgerald; Kate E Hoy; David Elliot; R N Susan McQueen; Lenore E Wambeek; Zafiris J Daskalakis Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Shilpa Rele; Robert Millet; Sungman Kim; Jong-Woo Paik; Seonghwan Kim; Prakash S Masand; Ashwin A Patkar Journal: Prim Care Companion CNS Disord Date: 2015-08-06
Authors: Jonathan Savitz; Allison C Nugent; Wendy Bogers; Alice Liu; Rebecca Sills; David A Luckenbaugh; Earle E Bain; Joseph L Price; Carlos Zarate; Husseini K Manji; Dara M Cannon; Sean Marrett; Dennis S Charney; Wayne C Drevets Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Brenda D Jamerson; Martha E Payne; Melanie E Garrett; Allison E Ashley-Koch; Marcy C Speer; David C Steffens Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Diego Freitas Tavares; Paulo Suen; Carla Garcia Rodrigues Dos Santos; Doris Hupfeld Moreno; Leandro Da Costa Lane Valiengo; Izio Klein; Lucas Borrione; Pamela Marques Forte; André R Brunoni; Ricardo Alberto Moreno Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 7.853