Andrea Vodermaier1, Roanne D Millman. 1. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. avoderma@psych.ubc.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is the most extensively validated scale for screening emotional distress in cancer patients. However, thresholds for clinical decision making vary widely across studies. A meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of identifying optimal, empirically derived cut-offs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies that compared the HADS total and its subscale scores against a semi-structured or structured clinical interview as a reference standard with regard to its screening efficacy for any mental disorders and depressive disorders alone. Separate pooled analyses were conducted for single or two adjacent thresholds. A total of 28 studies (inter-rater agreement, κ = 0.86) were included. RESULTS: The best thresholds for screening for mental disorders were 10 or 11 on the HADS total (sensitivity 0.80; specificity 0.74), 5 on the HADS depression subscale (sensitivity 0.84; specificity 0.50), and 7 or 8 on the HADS anxiety subscale (sensitivity 0.73; specificity 0.65). Respective thresholds for depression screening were 15 for the HADS total (sensitivity 0.87; specificity 0.88), 7 for the HADS depression subscale (sensitivity 0.86; specificity 0.81), and 10 or 11 for the HADS anxiety subscale (sensitivity 0.63; specificity 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The HADS anxiety subscale performed worse than the total and the depression subscales for both indicators. Diagnostic accuracy varied widely by threshold but was consistently superior for depression screening than for screening of any mental disorder.
PURPOSE: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is the most extensively validated scale for screening emotional distress in cancerpatients. However, thresholds for clinical decision making vary widely across studies. A meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of identifying optimal, empirically derived cut-offs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies that compared the HADS total and its subscale scores against a semi-structured or structured clinical interview as a reference standard with regard to its screening efficacy for any mental disorders and depressive disorders alone. Separate pooled analyses were conducted for single or two adjacent thresholds. A total of 28 studies (inter-rater agreement, κ = 0.86) were included. RESULTS: The best thresholds for screening for mental disorders were 10 or 11 on the HADS total (sensitivity 0.80; specificity 0.74), 5 on the HADS depression subscale (sensitivity 0.84; specificity 0.50), and 7 or 8 on the HADS anxiety subscale (sensitivity 0.73; specificity 0.65). Respective thresholds for depression screening were 15 for the HADS total (sensitivity 0.87; specificity 0.88), 7 for the HADS depression subscale (sensitivity 0.86; specificity 0.81), and 10 or 11 for the HADS anxiety subscale (sensitivity 0.63; specificity 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The HADS anxiety subscale performed worse than the total and the depression subscales for both indicators. Diagnostic accuracy varied widely by threshold but was consistently superior for depression screening than for screening of any mental disorder.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Anthony W Love; Brenda Grabsch; David M Clarke; Sidney Bloch; David W Kissane Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Julie F Pallant; Kerrie Clover; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathleen D Lyons; Jay G Hull; Peter A Kaufman; Zhongze Li; Janette L Seville; Tim A Ahles; Alice B Kornblith; Mark T Hegel Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2015-02-10
Authors: Kerrie Clover; Sylvie D Lambert; Christopher Oldmeadow; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Alex J Mitchell; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Judith M Resick; Robert M Arnold; Rebecca L Sudore; David Farrell; Shane Belin; Andrew D Althouse; Betty Ferrell; Bernard J Hammes; Edward Chu; Douglas B White; Kimberly J Rak; Yael Schenker Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Jingwei Wu; Zhangsheng Yu; Matthew J Bair; Jacob Kean; Timothy Stump; Patrick O Monahan Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312