OBJECTIVE: To summarize the psychometric properties of the PHQ2 and PHQ9 as screening instruments for depression. INTERVENTIONS: We identified 17 validation studies conducted in primary care; medical outpatients; and specialist medical services (cardiology, gynecology, stroke, dermatology, head injury, and otolaryngology). Electronic databases from 1994 to February 2007 (MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane registers) plus study reference lists have been used for this study. Translations included US English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German and Arabic). Summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios (OR) against a gold standard (DSM-IV) Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were calculated for each study. We used random effects bivariate meta-analysis at recommended cut points to produce summary receiver-operator characteristic (sROC) curves. We explored heterogeneity with metaregression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies (5,026 participants) validated the PHQ9 against MDD: sensitivity = 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.87); specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95); positive likelihood ratio = 10.12 (95% CI 6.52-15.67); negative likelihood ratio = 0.22 (0.15 to 0.32). There was substantial heterogeneity (Diagnostic Odds Ratio heterogeneity I2 = 82%), which was not explained by study setting (primary care versus general hospital); method of scoring (cutoff > or = 10 versus "diagnostic algorithm"); or study quality (blinded versus unblinded). The diagnostic validity of the PHQ2 was only validated in 3 studies and showed wide variability in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ9 is acceptable, and as good as longer clinician-administered instruments in a range of settings, countries, and populations. More research is needed to validate the PHQ2 to see if its diagnostic properties approach those of the PHQ9.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the psychometric properties of the PHQ2 and PHQ9 as screening instruments for depression. INTERVENTIONS: We identified 17 validation studies conducted in primary care; medical outpatients; and specialist medical services (cardiology, gynecology, stroke, dermatology, head injury, and otolaryngology). Electronic databases from 1994 to February 2007 (MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane registers) plus study reference lists have been used for this study. Translations included US English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German and Arabic). Summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios (OR) against a gold standard (DSM-IV) Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were calculated for each study. We used random effects bivariate meta-analysis at recommended cut points to produce summary receiver-operator characteristic (sROC) curves. We explored heterogeneity with metaregression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies (5,026 participants) validated the PHQ9 against MDD: sensitivity = 0.80 (95% CI 0.71-0.87); specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95); positive likelihood ratio = 10.12 (95% CI 6.52-15.67); negative likelihood ratio = 0.22 (0.15 to 0.32). There was substantial heterogeneity (Diagnostic Odds Ratio heterogeneity I2 = 82%), which was not explained by study setting (primary care versus general hospital); method of scoring (cutoff > or = 10 versus "diagnostic algorithm"); or study quality (blinded versus unblinded). The diagnostic validity of the PHQ2 was only validated in 3 studies and showed wide variability in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ9 is acceptable, and as good as longer clinician-administered instruments in a range of settings, countries, and populations. More research is needed to validate the PHQ2 to see if its diagnostic properties approach those of the PHQ9.
Authors: John W Williams; Michael Pignone; Gilbert Ramirez; Christina Perez Stellato Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Seong-Yi Baik; Junius J Gonzales; Barbara J Bowers; Jean S Anthony; Bas Tidjani; Jeffrey L Susman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Susan Caplan; Jennifer Alvidrez; Manuel Paris; Javier I Escobar; Jane K Dixon; Mayur M Desai; Robin Whittemore; Lawrence D Scahill Journal: Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2010
Authors: Linda G Marc; Whitney R Henderson; Astrid Desrosiers; Marcia A Testa; Samuel E Jean; Eniko Edit Akom Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Neda Laiteerapong; James Kirby; Yue Gao; Tzy-Chyi Yu; Ravi Sharma; Robert Nocon; Sang Mee Lee; Marshall H Chin; Aviva G Nathan; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Elbert S Huang Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Dimitry S Davydow; Wayne J Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette Ludman; Malia Oliver; Michael Von Korff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline M Mitchell; Susan D Reed; Susan Diem; Joseph C Larson; Katherine M Newton; Kristine E Ensrud; Andrea Z LaCroix; Bette Caan; Katherine A Guthrie Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Benjamin D Aronson; Michelle Johnson-Jennings; Margarette L Kading; Reid C Smith; Melissa L Walls Journal: Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res Date: 2016