ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2012
Validation of the Whooley questions and the Beck Depression Inventory in older adults.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Whooley questions for the identification of depression: a diagnostic meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Mental Ill-Health Risk Factors in the Construction Industry: Systematic Review.Journal of construction engineering and management · 2020Article
- Validation of the Zung self-rating depression scale (SDS) in older adults.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
- Measuring Depression in a Non-Western War-Affected Displaced Population: Measurement Equivalence of the Beck Depression Inventory.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Effect of Combined Use of Calcium and Vitamin B6 on Premenstrual Syndrome Symptoms: a Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of caring sciences · 2016Article
- The effect of wheat germ extract on premenstrual syndrome symptoms.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the psychometric properties of the Whooley questions and the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-21) in older adults with depression and chronic health problems.
designA population-based study.
settingCommunity. SUBJECTS: 474 adults, aged 72-73 years, living in the city of Oulu, Finland.
main outcome measuresThe screening parameters of the Whooley questions and the BDI-21 for detecting major depression.
resultsThe prevalence of major depression according to the DSM-IV was 5.3% (single or recurrent episode) obtained by the Mini Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). The BDI-21 was best able to identify a current episode of major depression with a cut-off point of 11. The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off point were 88.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 68.8-97.5) and 81.7% (95% CI 77.8-85.2), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.96). The two Whooley screening questions had a sensitivity of 62.5% (95% CI 40.6-81.2) and either screening question plus the help question had a sensitivity of 66.7% (44.7-84.4).
conclusionsThe Beck Depression Inventory is a valid instrument for the diagnosis of depression in older adults. As a screening measure, the optimal cut-off score should be 11 or higher. Our results indicate that the sensitivity of the Whooley questions is not high enough to be used as a screening scale among the elderly.
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.