Evan Tang1, Sumaya Dano1, Nathaniel Edwards1, Sara Macanovic1, Heather Ford1, Susan Bartlett2, Doris Howell3, Madeline Li4, Marta Novak5, Istvan Mucsi6. 1. Multi-Organ Transplant Program and Division of Nephrology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, 585 University Avenue, Peter Munk Building, Floor 11 Room 188, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Psychosocial Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. University Health Network and Department of Psychiatry, Centre for Mental Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Multi-Organ Transplant Program and Division of Nephrology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, 585 University Avenue, Peter Munk Building, Floor 11 Room 188, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. Istvan.mucsi@uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESASr) is widely used in clinical oncology to screen for physical and emotional symptoms. The performance of the anxiety and depression items (ESASr-A and ESASr-D, respectively) as screening tools have not been evaluated in patients treated with renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Kidney transplant recipients and patients on dialysis were recruited in Toronto. Patients were classified as having moderate/severe depression and anxiety symptoms using the established cut-off score of ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaires. RESULTS: This study included 931 participants; 62% male, mean age (SD) 55(16), and 52% White. All participants completed ESASr, however only 748 participants completed PHQ-9 and 769 participants completed GAD-7. Correlation between ESASr item scores and legacy scores were moderately strong (ESASr-D/PHQ-9: 0.61; ESASr-A/GAD-7: 0.64). We found good discrimination for moderate/severe depression and anxiety [area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% CI) ESASr-D 0.82(0.78-0.86); ESASr-A 0.87 (0.82, 0.92)]. The cut-off ≥ 2 for ESASr-D [Sensitivity = 0.76; Specificity = 0.77; Likelihood Ratio (LR) + = 3.29; LR - = 0.31] and ≥ 4 for ESASr-A (Sensitivity = 0.75; Specificity = 0.87; LR + = 5.76; LR - = 0.29) had the best combination of measurement characteristics. CONCLUSION: The identified ESASr-D and ESASr-A cut-off scores may be used to rule out patients without emotional distress with few false negatives. However, the low sensitivity identified in our analysis suggests that neither ESASr-D or ESASr-A are acceptable as standalone screening tools.
PURPOSE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESASr) is widely used in clinical oncology to screen for physical and emotional symptoms. The performance of the anxiety and depression items (ESASr-A and ESASr-D, respectively) as screening tools have not been evaluated in patients treated with renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Kidney transplant recipients and patients on dialysis were recruited in Toronto. Patients were classified as having moderate/severe depression and anxiety symptoms using the established cut-off score of ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaires. RESULTS: This study included 931 participants; 62% male, mean age (SD) 55(16), and 52% White. All participants completed ESASr, however only 748 participants completed PHQ-9 and 769 participants completed GAD-7. Correlation between ESASr item scores and legacy scores were moderately strong (ESASr-D/PHQ-9: 0.61; ESASr-A/GAD-7: 0.64). We found good discrimination for moderate/severe depression and anxiety [area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (95% CI) ESASr-D 0.82(0.78-0.86); ESASr-A 0.87 (0.82, 0.92)]. The cut-off ≥ 2 for ESASr-D [Sensitivity = 0.76; Specificity = 0.77; Likelihood Ratio (LR) + = 3.29; LR - = 0.31] and ≥ 4 for ESASr-A (Sensitivity = 0.75; Specificity = 0.87; LR + = 5.76; LR - = 0.29) had the best combination of measurement characteristics. CONCLUSION: The identified ESASr-D and ESASr-A cut-off scores may be used to rule out patients without emotional distress with few false negatives. However, the low sensitivity identified in our analysis suggests that neither ESASr-D or ESASr-A are acceptable as standalone screening tools.
Authors: Suetonia C Palmer; Mariacristina Vecchio; Jonathan C Craig; Marcello Tonelli; David W Johnson; Antonio Nicolucci; Fabio Pellegrini; Valeria Saglimbene; Giancarlo Logroscino; S Susan Hedayati; Giovanni F M Strippoli Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Daniel Cukor; Jeremy Coplan; Clinton Brown; Steven Friedman; Allyson Cromwell-Smith; Rolf A Peterson; Paul L Kimmel Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Joseph Chilcot; Andrew Davenport; David Wellsted; John Firth; Ken Farrington Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Piotr K Krajewski; Kinga Tyczyńska; Klaudia Bardowska; Piotr Olczyk; Magdalena Krajewska; Jacek C Szepietowski Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 5.075