PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic accuracy of two self-administered depression measures compared to an interviewer-administered measure in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD), and to analyze clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with disagreement among the three depression assessment tools. METHODS: We assessed 214 PD subjects using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15), and the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV depression module (SCID). Diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 and GDS-15 compared to the SCID was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to analyze factors associated with measure disagreement. We compared item agreement between the PHQ-9 and SCID to test the hypothesis that there would be less agreement between items assessing depression symptoms overlapping with common PD symptoms, compared to items having minimal overlap with PD manifestations. RESULTS: Compared to SCID diagnosis of major depression, PHQ-9 sensitivity is 50% and specificity is 93%; GDS-15 sensitivity is 43% and specificity is 96%. The GDS-15 has 85% sensitivity and 79% specificity and the PHQ-9 has 54% sensitivity and 85% specificity compared to SCID diagnosis of minor or major depression. The PHQ-9 and SCID show more agreement on items unrelated to PD manifestations. Pain was the only factor associated with disagreement between the SCID and PHQ-9. CONCLUSION: Compared to the PHQ-9, the GDS-15 had higher sensitivity and similar positive predictive value, suggesting it is a superior screening tool in clinical applications for PD. On future depression screening or diagnostic instruments, consideration should be given to excluding depression items overlapping with PD manifestations.
PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic accuracy of two self-administered depression measures compared to an interviewer-administered measure in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD), and to analyze clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with disagreement among the three depression assessment tools. METHODS: We assessed 214 PD subjects using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15), and the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV depression module (SCID). Diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9 and GDS-15 compared to the SCID was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to analyze factors associated with measure disagreement. We compared item agreement between the PHQ-9 and SCID to test the hypothesis that there would be less agreement between items assessing depression symptoms overlapping with common PD symptoms, compared to items having minimal overlap with PD manifestations. RESULTS: Compared to SCID diagnosis of major depression, PHQ-9 sensitivity is 50% and specificity is 93%; GDS-15 sensitivity is 43% and specificity is 96%. The GDS-15 has 85% sensitivity and 79% specificity and the PHQ-9 has 54% sensitivity and 85% specificity compared to SCID diagnosis of minor or major depression. The PHQ-9 and SCID show more agreement on items unrelated to PD manifestations. Pain was the only factor associated with disagreement between the SCID and PHQ-9. CONCLUSION: Compared to the PHQ-9, the GDS-15 had higher sensitivity and similar positive predictive value, suggesting it is a superior screening tool in clinical applications for PD. On future depression screening or diagnostic instruments, consideration should be given to excluding depression items overlapping with PD manifestations.
Authors: Anette Schrag; Paolo Barone; Richard G Brown; Albert F G Leentjens; William M McDonald; Sergio Starkstein; Daniel Weintraub; Werner Poewe; Olivier Rascol; Cristina Sampaio; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: P S Chin; A T Berg; S S Spencer; M L Lee; S Shinnar; M R Sperling; J T Langfitt; T S Walczak; S V Pacia; C W Bazil; S Vassar; B G Vickrey Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-06-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J R Williams; E S Hirsch; K Anderson; A L Bush; S R Goldstein; S Grill; S Lehmann; J T Little; R L Margolis; J Palanci; G Pontone; H Weiss; P Rabins; L Marsh Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: G Stennis Watson; Brenna A Cholerton; Rachel G Gross; Daniel Weintraub; Cyrus P Zabetian; John Q Trojanowski; Thomas J Montine; Andrew Siderowf; James B Leverenz Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Qiuyue Zhong; Bizu Gelaye; Marta Rondon; Sixto E Sánchez; Pedro J García; Elena Sánchez; Yasmin V Barrios; Gregory E Simon; David C Henderson; Swee May Cripe; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Sonja Rutten; Chris Vriend; Ysbrand D van der Werf; Henk W Berendse; Daniel Weintraub; Odile A van den Heuvel Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Kimberly C Paul; Janet S Sinsheimer; Myles Cockburn; Jeff M Bronstein; Yvette Bordelon; Beate Ritz Journal: Environ Int Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Alon Avidan; Ron D Hays; Natalie Diaz; Yvette Bordelon; Alexander W Thompson; Stefanie D Vassar; Barbara G Vickrey Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: Stefanie D Vassar; Yvette M Bordelon; Ron D Hays; Natalie Diaz; Rebecca Rausch; Cherry Mao; Barbara G Vickrey Journal: Parkinsons Dis Date: 2012-10-22