Literature DB >> 15201568

Implications of using different cut-offs on symptom severity scales to define remission from depression.

Mark Zimmerman1, Michael A Posternak, Iwona Chelminski.   

Abstract

A fundamental question in the medical management of disease is how well treatment works. Although there are many ways of defining improvement, one endpoint of definite interest is the resolution or remission of the disorder. In short-term antidepressant treatment trials, remission is usually defined according to post-treatment scores on symptom severity measures, such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) or the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). However, there is uncertainty as to what cut-offs should be used on these measures to define remission. During the past 2 years, as part of the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, our laboratory has examined the question of how to define remission on the HRSD and MADRS. In the present report from the MIDAS project, we examined the impact of the cut-off score used to define remission on the percentage of depressed outpatients in ongoing treatment who are considered to be in remission. In addition, we examined the association between remission status and psychosocial impairment for different cut-off scores. Three hundred and three depressed psychiatric outpatients were rated on the MADRS, 17-item HRSD, and an index of DSM-IV remission status. Approximately one-third of patients completed a measure of psychosocial impairment. For both the HRSD and the MADRS, we examined four cut-off scores for remission. For each cut-off, we determined the percentage of patients who met the definition of remission, the percentage of patients who continued to meet DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), and the percentage of patients without any self-reported impairment from depression. For both scales, the range of cut-off scores was associated with more than a two-fold difference in prevalence of remission. Based on higher thresholds to define remission, a small percentage of patients met criteria for MDD, whereas no patients scoring below the low thresholds had MDD. The threshold to define remission was associated with psychosocial impairment: higher cut-off scores were associated with lower rates of no impairment. The cut-offs used to define remission from depression considerably influence the percentage of patients considered to be in remission. Lower cut-off scores than those most commonly used to define remission appear to be more valid.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15201568     DOI: 10.1097/01.yic.0000130232.57629.46

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Clin Psychopharmacol        ISSN: 0268-1315            Impact factor:   1.659


  19 in total

1.  The fallacy of thresholds used in defining response and remission in depression rating scales.

Authors:  Florian Naudet; Bruno Millet; Jean Michel Reymann; Bruno Falissard
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 4.035

2.  Post-surgical depressive symptoms and long-term survival in non-metastatic breast cancer patients at 11-year follow-up.

Authors:  Michael H Antoni; Jamie M Jacobs; Laura C Bouchard; Suzanne C Lechner; Devika R Jutagir; Lisa M Gudenkauf; Bonnie B Blomberg; Stefan Glück; Charles S Carver
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 3.238

3.  Brief psychosocial-behavioral intervention with antidepressant reduces poststroke depression significantly more than usual care with antidepressant: living well with stroke: randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Pamela H Mitchell; Richard C Veith; Kyra J Becker; Ann Buzaitis; Kevin C Cain; Michael Fruin; David Tirschwell; Linda Teri
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 4.  Use of antidepressants in late-life depression.

Authors:  Tarek K Rajji; Benoit H Mulsant; Francis E Lotrich; Cynthia Lokker; Charles F Reynolds
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 5.  Transcranial direct current stimulation for acute major depressive episodes: meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Authors:  André R Brunoni; Adriano H Moffa; Felipe Fregni; Ulrich Palm; Frank Padberg; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Djamila Bennabi; Emmanuel Haffen; Angelo Alonzo; Colleen K Loo
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 9.319

6.  Slow versus standard up-titration of paroxetine for the treatment of depression in cancer patients: a pilot study.

Authors:  Laura Amodeo; Lorys Castelli; Paolo Leombruni; Daniela Cipriani; Alessia Biancofiore; Riccardo Torta
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Identifying HAM-A cutoffs for mild, moderate, and severe generalized anxiety disorder.

Authors:  Louis S Matza; Robert Morlock; Chris Sexton; Karen Malley; Douglas Feltner
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 4.035

Review 8.  Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for unipolar depression: a systematic review of classic long-term randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Dorian Deshauer; David Moher; Dean Fergusson; Ester Moher; Margaret Sampson; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Depression in lung cancer patients: is the HADS an effective screening tool?

Authors:  Lorys Castelli; Luca Binaschi; Paola Caldera; Riccardo Torta
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-03-13       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Postsurgical Depressive Symptoms and Proinflammatory Cytokine Elevations in Women Undergoing Primary Treatment for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Laura C Bouchard; Michael H Antoni; Bonnie B Blomberg; Jamie M Stagl; Lisa M Gudenkauf; Devika R Jutagir; Alain Diaz; Suzanne Lechner; Stefan Glück; Robert P Derhagopian; Charles S Carver
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.312

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.