Comparison of four brief depression screening instruments in ovarian cancer patients: Diagnostic accuracy using traditional versus alternative cutpoints.
Comparison of four brief depression screening instruments in ovarian cancer patients: Diagnostic accuracy using traditional versus alternative cutpoints.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.03.024
复制
发表时间：
2017-06
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Basen-Engquist K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shinn EH;Valentine A;Baum G;Carmack C;Kilgore K;Bodurka D;Basen-Engquist K
我们使用传统和替代评分方法，将 4 种抑郁症筛查量表的诊断准确性与金标准结构化临床访谈 - DSM IV 重性抑郁发作 (MDE) 进行比较，以评估积极治疗的卵巢癌患者。在新的化疗方案开始时，卵巢癌患者在同一天完成了以下调查：流行病学研究中心抑郁量表（CES-D）、初级保健贝克抑郁量表快速筛查（BDI-FastScreen）、患者健康问卷-9（PHQ-9）和单项筛查（“你抑郁吗？”）。计算每种仪器对于重度抑郁症的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）和阴性预测值。为了控制抗抑郁药物的使用，对未服用抗抑郁药物的患者子样本重新进行了分析。一百五十三名卵巢癌患者参加了这项研究。只有 14 名参与者符合当前 MDE 的 SCID 标准（9%）。当评估所有患者时，无论他们是否已经在接受抗抑郁药物治疗，PHQ-9 上交替切点为 6 的两阶段评分方法具有最佳阳性预测值 (PPV=32%)。在 CES-D 上使用传统的 16 分界点导致了最低的 PPV (5%)；使用更严格的 22 分界点导致 PPV 略有改善，但仍然很差，为 7%。事实证明，使用两阶段 PHQ-9 进行的筛查总体上效果最好，并且当用于尚未接受抗抑郁药物治疗的患者时，其准确性会得到提高。
We compared the diagnostic accuracy of 4 depression screening scales, using traditional and alternative scoring methods, to the gold standard Structured Clinical Interview-DSM IV major depressive episode (MDE) in ovarian cancer patients on active treatment. At the beginning of a new chemotherapy regimen, ovarian cancer patients completed the following surveys on the same day: the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Beck Depression Inventory Fast-Screen for Primary Care (BDI-FastScreen), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and a 1-item screener (“Are you depressed?”). Each instrument's sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value were calculated with respect to major depression. To control for antidepressant use, the analyses were re-run for a subsample of patients who were not on antidepressants. One hundred fifty-three ovarian cancer patients were enrolled into the study. Only fourteen participants met SCID criteria for current MDE (9%). When evaluating all patients regardless of whether they were already being treated with antidepressants, the two-phase scoring approach with an alternate cutpoint of 6 on the PHQ-9 had the best positive predictive value (PPV=32%). Using a traditional cutpoint of 16 on the CES-D resulted in the lowest PPV (5%); using a more stringent cutpoint of 22 resulted in a slightly improved but still poor PPV, 7%. Screening with a two-phase PHQ-9 proved best overall, and its accuracy was improved when used with patients who were not already being treated with antidepressants.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
Passik, SD;Dugan, W;Edgerton, S
通讯作者：
Edgerton, S
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Bodurka-Bevers, D;Basen-Engquist, K;Gershenson, DM
通讯作者：
Gershenson, DM
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
DEROGATIS, LR;MORROW, GR;CARNICKE, CLM
通讯作者：
CARNICKE, CLM
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Brintzenhofe-Szoc, Karlynn M.;Levin, Tomer T.;Zabora, James R.
通讯作者：
Zabora, James R.
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
MULROW, CD;WILLIAMS, JW;KERBER, C
通讯作者：
KERBER, C