Literature DB >> 23058983

How can we use depression severity to guide treatment selection when measures of depression categorize patients differently?

Mark Zimmerman1, Jennifer H Martinez, Michael Friedman, Daniela A Boerescu, Naureen Attiullah, Cristina Toba.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Treatment guidelines for depression suggest that severity should be taken into account when initiating treatment. If clinicians are to consider illness severity in selecting among treatment options for depression, then it is important to have reliable, valid, and clinically useful methods of distinguishing between levels of depression severity. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we compared 3 self-report scales that assess the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder on the basis of how these scales distribute patients into severity categories.
METHOD: From June 2010 to November 2011, 245 depressed outpatients completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS), Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The study was conducted at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. The patients were subdivided into severity categories according to the cutoff scores recommended by each scales' developers. The patients were also rated on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17).
RESULTS: The correlations between the HDRS-17 and the 3 self-report scales were nearly identical. Yet the scales significantly differed in their distribution of patients into severity categories. On the CUDOS and HDRS-17, moderate depression was the most frequent severity category, whereas on the PHQ-9 and QIDS, the majority of the patients were classified as severe. Significantly fewer patients were classified as severely depressed on the CUDOS compared to the PHQ-9 (McNemar = 153.8; P < .001) and QIDS (McNemar = 114.0; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: If clinicians are to follow treatment guidelines' recommendations to base initial treatment selection on the severity of depression, then it is important to have a consistent method of determining depression severity. The marked disparity between standardized scales in the classification of depressed outpatients into severity groups indicates that there is a problem with the use of such instruments to classify depression severity. Caution is warranted in the use of these scales to guide treatment selection until the thresholds to define severity ranges have been empirically established. © Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23058983     DOI: 10.4088/JCP.12m07775

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0160-6689            Impact factor:   4.384


  15 in total

1.  The severity of psychiatric disorders.

Authors:  Mark Zimmerman; Theresa A Morgan; Kasey Stanton
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 49.548

Review 2.  Content agreement of depressive symptomatology in children and adolescents: a review of eighteen self-report questionnaires.

Authors:  Ana Vilar; Néstor Sánchez-Martínez; Maria Jesús Blasco; Samantha Álvarez-Salazar; Santiago Batlle Vila; Carlos G Forero
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  The clinical characterization of the adult patient with depression aimed at personalization of management.

Authors:  Mario Maj; Dan J Stein; Gordon Parker; Mark Zimmerman; Giovanni A Fava; Marc De Hert; Koen Demyttenaere; Roger S McIntyre; Thomas Widiger; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 49.548

4.  Moderate levels of depression predict sexual transmission risk in HIV-infected MSM: a longitudinal analysis of data from six sites involved in a "prevention for positives" study.

Authors:  Conall O'Cleirigh; Michael E Newcomb; Kenneth H Mayer; Margie Skeer; Lara Traeger; Steven A Safren
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2013-06

5.  Depression in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Faten Al Zaben; Doaa Ahmed Khalifa; Mohammad Gamal Sehlo; Saad Al Shohaib; Faisul Shaheen; Hanadi Alhozali; Alferdose Osama Hariri; Riyadh Ghazi Ahmad; Moayad Reda Kabli; Harold G Koenig
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  A therapeutic application of the experience sampling method in the treatment of depression: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ingrid Kramer; Claudia J P Simons; Jessica A Hartmann; Claudia Menne-Lothmann; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Frenk Peeters; Koen Schruers; Alex L van Bemmel; Inez Myin-Germeys; Philippe Delespaul; Jim van Os; Marieke Wichers
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 49.548

7.  Validation of clinical symptom IRT scores for diagnosis and severity assessment of common mental disorders.

Authors:  Elena Olariu; José-Ignacio Castro-Rodriguez; Pilar Álvarez; Carolina Garnier; Marta Reinoso; Luis Miguel Martín-López; Jordi Alonso; Carlos G Forero
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-10-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Depression sum-scores don't add up: why analyzing specific depression symptoms is essential.

Authors:  Eiko I Fried; Randolph M Nesse
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Concordance between clinician-rated and patient reported outcome measures of depressive symptoms in treatment resistant depression.

Authors:  Rachel Hershenberg; William M McDonald; Andrea Crowell; Patricio Riva-Posse; W Edward Craighead; Helen S Mayberg; Boadie W Dunlop
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 4.839

10.  Let's get back to work: survival analysis on the return-to-work after depression.

Authors:  Pepijn Vemer; Clazien A Bouwmans; Moniek C Zijlstra-Vlasveld; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 2.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.