PURPOSE: Although screening for unipolar depression is controversial, it is potentially an efficient way to find undetected cases and improve diagnostic acumen. Using a reference standard, we aimed to validate the 2- and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-2 and PHQ-9) in primary care settings. The PHQ-2 comprises the first 2 questions of the PHQ-9. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients attending Auckland family practices completed the PHQ-9, after which they completed the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) depression reference standard. Sensitivities and specificities for PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 2,642 patients who completed both the PHQ-9 and the CIDI. Sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 for diagnosing major depression were 86% and 78%, respectively, with a score of 2 or higher and 61% and 92% with a score 3 or higher; for the PHQ-9, they were 74% and 91%, respectively, with a score of 10 or higher. For the PHQ-2 a score of 2 or higher detected more cases of depression than a score of 3 or higher. For the PHQ-9 a score of 10 or higher detected more cases of major depression than the PHQ determination of major depression originally described by Spitzer et al in 1999. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest validation study of the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9, compared with a reference standard interview, undertaken in an exclusively primary care population. The PHQ-2 score or 2 or higher had good sensitivity but poor specificity in detecting major depression. Using a PHQ-2 threshold score of 2 or higher rather than 3 or higher resulted in more depressed patients being correctly identified. A PHQ-9 score of 10 or higher appears to detect more depressed patients than the originally described PHQ-9 scoring for major depression.
PURPOSE: Although screening for unipolar depression is controversial, it is potentially an efficient way to find undetected cases and improve diagnostic acumen. Using a reference standard, we aimed to validate the 2- and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ-2 and PHQ-9) in primary care settings. The PHQ-2 comprises the first 2 questions of the PHQ-9. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients attending Auckland family practices completed the PHQ-9, after which they completed the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) depression reference standard. Sensitivities and specificities for PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 2,642 patients who completed both the PHQ-9 and the CIDI. Sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 for diagnosing major depression were 86% and 78%, respectively, with a score of 2 or higher and 61% and 92% with a score 3 or higher; for the PHQ-9, they were 74% and 91%, respectively, with a score of 10 or higher. For the PHQ-2 a score of 2 or higher detected more cases of depression than a score of 3 or higher. For the PHQ-9 a score of 10 or higher detected more cases of major depression than the PHQ determination of major depression originally described by Spitzer et al in 1999. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest validation study of the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9, compared with a reference standard interview, undertaken in an exclusively primary care population. The PHQ-2 score or 2 or higher had good sensitivity but poor specificity in detecting major depression. Using a PHQ-2 threshold score of 2 or higher rather than 3 or higher resulted in more depressedpatients being correctly identified. A PHQ-9 score of 10 or higher appears to detect more depressedpatients than the originally described PHQ-9 scoring for major depression.
Authors: C B Cutler; L A Legano; B P Dreyer; A H Fierman; S B Berkule; S I Lusskin; S Tomopoulos; M Roth; A L Mendelsohn Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2007-08-22 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-01-04
Authors: Osvaldo P Almeida; Jane Pirkis; Ngaire Kerse; Moira Sim; Leon Flicker; John Snowdon; Brian Draper; Gerard Byrne; Robert Goldney; Nicola T Lautenschlager; Nigel Stocks; Helman Alfonso; Jon J Pfaff Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Shelagh A Mulvaney; Constance A Mara; Jessica C Kichler; Shideh Majidi; Kimberly A Driscoll; Sarah C Westen; Alana Rawlinson; Laura M Jacobsen; Rebecca N Adams; Korey K Hood; Maureen Monaghan Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Joseph A Delaney; Robin M Nance; Bridget M Whitney; Frederick L Altice; Xinyuan Dong; Maria Esther Perez Trejo; Mika Matsuzaki; Faye S Taxman; Geetanjali Chander; Irene Kuo; Rob Fredericksen; Lauren N Strand; Joseph J Eron; Elvin Geng; Mari M Kitahata; William C Mathews; Kenneth Mayer; Richard D Moore; Michael S Saag; Sandra Springer; Redonna Chandler; Shoshana Kahana; Heidi M Crane Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: J Michael Randall; Rochelle Voth; Erin Burnett; Lyudmila Bazhenova; Wayne A Bardwell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bizu Gelaye; Mahlet G Tadesse; Michelle A Williams; Jesse R Fann; Ann Vander Stoep; Xiao-Hua Andrew Zhou Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 3.797