ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2011
Using patient-centred consultation when screening for depression in elderly patients: a comparative pilot study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correspondence Between the Neuropsychiatric Interview M.I.N.I. and the BDI-II and MADRS-S Self-Rating Instruments as Diagnostic Tools in Primary Care Patients with Depression.International journal of general medicine · 2020Article
- Comparison Between the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and the Beck Depression Inventory II in Primary Care.The primary care companion for CNS disorders · 2015Article
- Course, risk factors, and prognostic factors in elderly primary care patients with mild depression: a two-year observational study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2013Article
- Validation of the Whooley questions and the Beck Depression Inventory in older adults.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUsing validated screening instruments to detect depressive symptoms in the elderly has been recommended. The aim of this study was to compare a patient-centred consultation model with the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire, using the MADRS-S as reference for detecting depressive symptoms in an elderly primary care population.
designComparative study.
settingPrimary care, Sweden. SUBJECTS: During an 11-month period 302 consecutive patients aged 60 and over attending a primary care centre were screened with the PRIME-MD and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-rated version (MADRS-S) instrument. The results were unknown to the GPs who used a structured, patient-centred consultation model comprising seven open-ended "key questions".
main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire and the patient-centred consultation model using MADRS-S as reference for possible depression at two cut-off levels with 15% prevalence. Results. Sensitivity was lower for the consultation model than the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire: 78% and 98%, respectively. The GPs failed to identify every fifth patient using the lower cut-off (MADRS-S≥13) but the number of required diagnostic interviews decreased by almost 50%: 85 versus 162, respectively. PPV was 43% and 28%, respectively. Both instruments showed high sensitivity (93%) using the higher cut-off (MADRS-S≥20) and had high NPV: 95% and 99%, respectively.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that the consultation screening procedure might be as useful in everyday practice as the PRIME-MD screening questionnaire. Both screening procedures may also be useful for ruling out depressive symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.