BACKGROUND: The brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is commonly used to screen for depression with 10 often recommended as the cut-off score. We summarized the psychometric properties of the PHQ-9 across a range of studies and cut-off scores to select the optimal cut-off for detecting depression. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1999 to August 2010 for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PHQ-9 to diagnose major depressive disorders. We calculated summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios for detecting major depressive disorder at different cut-off scores and in different settings. We used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis at cutoff points between 7 and 15 to produce summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: We identified 18 validation studies (n = 7180) conducted in various clinical settings. Eleven studies provided details about the diagnostic properties of the questionnaire at more than one cut-off score (including 10), four studies reported a cut-off score of 10, and three studies reported cut-off scores other than 10. The pooled specificity results ranged from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.82) for a cut-off score of 7 to 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) for a cut-off score of 15. There was major variability in sensitivity for cut-off scores between 7 and 15. There were no substantial differences in the pooled sensitivity and specificity for a range of cut-off scores (8-11). INTERPRETATION: The PHQ-9 was found to have acceptable diagnostic properties for detecting major depressive disorder for cut-off scores between 8 and 11. Authors of future validation studies should consistently report the outcomes for different cut-off scores.
BACKGROUND: The brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is commonly used to screen for depression with 10 often recommended as the cut-off score. We summarized the psychometric properties of the PHQ-9 across a range of studies and cut-off scores to select the optimal cut-off for detecting depression. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1999 to August 2010 for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PHQ-9 to diagnose major depressive disorders. We calculated summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios for detecting major depressive disorder at different cut-off scores and in different settings. We used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis at cutoff points between 7 and 15 to produce summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: We identified 18 validation studies (n = 7180) conducted in various clinical settings. Eleven studies provided details about the diagnostic properties of the questionnaire at more than one cut-off score (including 10), four studies reported a cut-off score of 10, and three studies reported cut-off scores other than 10. The pooled specificity results ranged from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.82) for a cut-off score of 7 to 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) for a cut-off score of 15. There was major variability in sensitivity for cut-off scores between 7 and 15. There were no substantial differences in the pooled sensitivity and specificity for a range of cut-off scores (8-11). INTERPRETATION: The PHQ-9 was found to have acceptable diagnostic properties for detecting major depressive disorder for cut-off scores between 8 and 11. Authors of future validation studies should consistently report the outcomes for different cut-off scores.
Authors: Flávia de Lima Osório; Ana Vilela Mendes; José Alexandre Crippa; Sonia Regina Loureiro Journal: Perspect Psychiatr Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.186
Authors: Tony Kendrick; Christopher Dowrick; Anita McBride; Amanda Howe; Pamela Clarke; Sue Maisey; Michael Moore; Peter W Smith Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-03-19
Authors: Karin Wittkampf; Hiske van Ravesteijn; Kim Baas; Henk van de Hoogen; Aart Schene; Patrick Bindels; Peter Lucassen; Eloy van de Lisdonk; Henk van Weert Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Johanna M van Dongen; Birre van Esveld; Dorcas Magai; Annemieke van Straten; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg; Klaas M Huijbregts; Harm van Marwijk; Heleen Riper; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Cecilia Tomori; Allison M McFall; Aylur K Srikrishnan; Shruti H Mehta; Sunil S Solomon; Santhanam Anand; Canjeevaram K Vasudevan; Suniti Solomon; David D Celentano Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-02
Authors: Erick G Guerrero; Jorge Ameth Villatoro; Yinfei Kong; Marycarmen Bustos Gamiño; William A Vega; Maria Elena Medina Mora Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2014-04-18
Authors: J M Brooks; A J Titus; M L Bruce; N M Orzechowski; T A Mackenzie; S J Bartels; J A Batsis Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
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