Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24661030›Full record

ArticleRehabilitation psychology2014

Comparing CESD-10, PHQ-9, and PROMIS depression instruments in individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Dagmar Amtmann, Jiseon Kim, Hyewon Chung, Alyssa M Bamer, Robert L Askew, Salene Wu, Karon F Cook, Kurt L Johnson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rehabilitation psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06107933 (Developmental Impacts of MicroPLastics Exposure in Early Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 150 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06107933 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Developmental Impacts of MicroPLastics Exposure in Early Life

TypeobservationalSponsorJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthRan2023 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsInfant Development, Breast Feeding, Environmental ExposureArmsObservational only
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

150 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dagmar AmtmannDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Jiseon KimDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Hyewon ChungDepartment of Education, Chungnam National University.ORCID 0000-0002-9267-0110
Alyssa M BamerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Robert L AskewDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-9579-2279
Salene WuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Karon F CookDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University.
Kurt L JohnsonDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine.

Funding

UW Center on Outcomes Research in Rehabilitation(RMI)U01AR052171 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI AMTMANN, DAGMAR · 2004 to 2008
$5.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR052171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluated psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale-10 (CESD-10), and the 8-item PROMIS Depression Short Form (PROMIS-D-8; 8b short form) in a sample of individuals living with multiple sclerosis (MS). RESEARCH

methodData were collected by a self-reported mailed survey of a community sample of people living with MS (n = 455). Factor structure, interitem reliability, convergent/discriminant validity and assignment to categories of depression severity were examined.

resultsA 1-factor, confirmatory factor analytic model had adequate fit for all instruments. Scores on the depression scales were more highly correlated with one another than with scores on measures of pain, sleep disturbance, and fatigue. The CESD-10 categorized about 37% of participants as having significant depressive symptoms. At least moderate depression was indicated for 24% of participants by PHQ-9. PROMIS-D-8 identified 19% of participants as having at least moderate depressive symptoms and about 7% having at least moderately severe depression. None of the examined scales had ceiling effects, but the PROMIS-D-8 had a floor effect.

conclusionsOverall, scores on all 3 scales demonstrated essential unidimensionality and had acceptable interitem reliability and convergent/discriminant validity. Researchers and clinicians can choose any of these scales to measure depressive symptoms in individuals living with MS. The PHQ-9 offers validated cutoff scores for diagnosing clinical depression. The PROMIS-D-8 measure minimizes the impact of somatic features on the assessment of depression and allows for flexible administration, including Computerize Adaptive Testing (CAT). The CESD-10 measures 2 aspects of depression, depressed mood and lack of positive affect, while still providing an interpretable total score.

Indexed as

Depressive DisorderFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24661030
PMCPMC4059037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.