Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26566285›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Validation of Six Short and Ultra-short Screening Instruments for Depression for People Living with HIV in Ontario: Results from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study.

Stephanie K Y Choi, Eleanor Boyle, Ann N Burchell, Sandra Gardner, Evan Collins, Paul Grootendorst, Sean B Rourke, OHTN Cohort Study Group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Stephanie K Y ChoiThe Ontario HIV Treatment Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eleanor BoyleInstitute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Ann N BurchellDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sandra GardnerThe Ontario HIV Treatment Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Evan CollinsUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paul GrootendorstDivision of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sean B RourkeThe Ontario HIV Treatment Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
OHTN Cohort Study Group

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMajor depression affects up to half of people living with HIV. However, among HIV-positive patients, depression goes unrecognized 60-70% of the time in non-psychiatric settings. We sought to evaluate three screening instruments and their short forms to facilitate the recognition of current depression in HIV-positive patients attending HIV specialty care clinics in Ontario.

methodsA multi-centre validation study was conducted in Ontario to examine the validity and accuracy of three instruments (the Center for Epidemiologic Depression Scale [CESD20], the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10], and the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale [PHQ9]) and their short forms (CESD10, K6, and PHQ2) in diagnosing current major depression among 190 HIV-positive patients in Ontario. Results from the three instruments and their short forms were compared to results from the gold standard measured by Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (the "M.I.N.I.").

resultsOverall, the three instruments identified depression with excellent accuracy and validity (area under the curve [AUC]>0.9) and good reliability (Kappa statistics: 0.71-0.79; Cronbach's alpha: 0.87-0.93). We did not find that the AUCs differed in instrument pairs (p-value>0.09), or between the instruments and their short forms (p-value>0.3). Except for the PHQ2, the instruments showed good-to-excellent sensitivity (0.86-1.0) and specificity (0.81-0.87), excellent negative predictive value (>0.90), and moderate positive predictive value (0.49-0.58) at their optimal cut-points.

conclusionAmong people in HIV care in Ontario, Canada, the three instruments and their short forms performed equally well and accurately. When further in-depth assessments become available, shorter instruments might find greater clinical acceptance. This could lead to clinical benefits in fast-paced speciality HIV care settings and better management of depression in HIV-positive patients.

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdultArea Under CurveCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesData CollectionFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalOntarioPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID26566285
PMCPMC4643910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.