Brett D Thombs1, Roy C Ziegelstein, Mary A Whooley. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University and Sir Mortimer B Davis-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada. brett.thombs@mcgill.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend depression screening in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but how to accomplish this is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the test characteristics of the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and a two-step screening approach (PHQ-2 then PHQ-9 if positive on PHQ-2), compared with the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule (C-DIS) for major depression. We also evaluated a "PHQ diagnosis" of depression, requiring five of nine symptoms "more than half the days," compared with the C-DIS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 1,024 outpatients with CAD. MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients (22%) had current major depression. Optimal cutpoints were >or=2 for the PHQ-2 (82% sensitive, 79% specific) and >or=6 for the PHQ-9 (83% sensitive, 76% specific). The two-step screening approach was less sensitive (75%), but more specific (84%), than the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9 alone. The "PHQ diagnosis" had low sensitivity (28%), but high specificity (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Cutpoints of >or=2 on the PHQ-2 and >or=6 on the PHQ-9 had similar test characteristics. A two-step approach using the PHQ-2 followed by the PHQ-9 was no better than either instrument alone. A "PHQ diagnosis" of depression had high specificity, but poor sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend depression screening in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but how to accomplish this is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the test characteristics of the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and a two-step screening approach (PHQ-2 then PHQ-9 if positive on PHQ-2), compared with the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule (C-DIS) for major depression. We also evaluated a "PHQ diagnosis" of depression, requiring five of nine symptoms "more than half the days," compared with the C-DIS. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of 1,024 outpatients with CAD. MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients (22%) had current major depression. Optimal cutpoints were >or=2 for the PHQ-2 (82% sensitive, 79% specific) and >or=6 for the PHQ-9 (83% sensitive, 76% specific). The two-step screening approach was less sensitive (75%), but more specific (84%), than the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9 alone. The "PHQ diagnosis" had low sensitivity (28%), but high specificity (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Cutpoints of >or=2 on the PHQ-2 and >or=6 on the PHQ-9 had similar test characteristics. A two-step approach using the PHQ-2 followed by the PHQ-9 was no better than either instrument alone. A "PHQ diagnosis" of depression had high specificity, but poor sensitivity.
Authors: Lori Mosca; Carole L Banka; Emelia J Benjamin; Kathy Berra; Cheryl Bushnell; Rowena J Dolor; Theodore G Ganiats; Antoinette S Gomes; Heather L Gornik; Clarissa Gracia; Martha Gulati; Constance K Haan; Debra R Judelson; Nora Keenan; Ellie Kelepouris; Erin D Michos; L Kristin Newby; Suzanne Oparil; Pamela Ouyang; Mehmet C Oz; Diana Petitti; Vivian W Pinn; Rita F Redberg; Rosalyn Scott; Katherine Sherif; Sidney C Smith; George Sopko; Robin H Steinhorn; Neil J Stone; Kathryn A Taubert; Barbara A Todd; Elaine Urbina; Nanette K Wenger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elliott M. Antman; Daniel T. Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R. Bates; Lee A. Green; Mary Hand; Judith S. Hochman; Harlan M. Krumholz; Frederick G. Kushner; Gervasio A. Lamas; Charles J. Mullany; Joseph P. Ornato; David L. Pearle; Michael A. Sloan; Sidney C. Smith; Joseph S. Alpert; Jeffrey L. Anderson; David P. Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J. Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L. Halperin; Loren F. Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K. Jacobs; Joseph P. Ornato Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Eleanor E Beale; Scott R Beach; Arianna M Belcher; Laura Suarez; Shweta R Motiwala; Parul U Gandhi; Hanna Gaggin; James L Januzzi; Brian C Healy; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Steven C Martino; Marc N Elliott; David E Kanouse; Donna O Farley; Q Burkhart; Ron D Hays Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Steven C Martino; Marc N Elliott; Amelia M Haviland; Debra Saliba; Q Burkhart; David E Kanouse Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: David B Bekelman; Larry A Allen; Connor F McBryde; Brack Hattler; Diane L Fairclough; Edward P Havranek; Carolyn Turvey; Paula M Meek Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Susanne S Pedersen; Johan Denollet; Peter de Jonge; Cihan Simsek; Patrick W Serruys; Ron T van Domburg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-07-05 Impact factor: 5.128