Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27195436›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2017

Assessing depression in a geriatric cancer population.

Rebecca M Saracino, Mark I Weinberger, Andrew J Roth, Arti Hurria, Christian J Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Difficult Task of Diagnosing Depression in Elderly People with Cancer: A Systematic Review.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Identifying patients at risk for depression after radical cystectomy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca M SaracinoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Mark I WeinbergerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J RothDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Arti HurriaCancer and Aging Research Program, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, USA.
Christian J NelsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USCity of Hope · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Psychosocial Palliative & Community Research in CancerT32CA009461 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JENNIFER L HAY, Jamie S. Ostroff · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the ability of three popular self-report measures of depression to assess depression in a geriatric cancer setting.

methodCancer patients 70 years or older and on active treatment completed the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale-Revised, and were interviewed using the depression module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM disorders (SCID) as the 'gold standard.' Analyses included calculating internal consistency, ROC curves, and the sensitivity and specificity to detect major depression (MDD) or minor depression (i.e. subthreshold depression).

resultsIn a sample of 201 cancer patients (85% White; 64% completed college degree or higher), all three of the self-report measures produced adequate internal consistency and predicted depression greater than chance. However, the published cutoff scores for detecting MDD produced inadequate sensitivity, suggesting these scores will miss as many as 33%-83% of geriatric cancer patients who are depressed. Revised cutoff scores were lower than published cutoff scores.

conclusionAlthough these measures produced good internal consistency and were better than chance at predicting depression in a geriatric cancer sample, the published cutoff scores for these measures did not perform well in predicting MDD nor minor depression. Of the three measures, the CES-D appeared to have the most utility. This data suggests that these popular screening measures may be inadequate for reliably identifying depression in a geriatric cancer population. Researchers and clinicians, therefore, should use caution when selecting depression measures for geriatric cancer patients and consider using the lower cut-off scores presented here.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAgedAged, 80 and overDepressionFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMaleNeoplasmsPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSelf ReportSensitivity and Specificitycancerdepressiongeriatricsmeasurement

Identifiers

PMID27195436
PMCPMC5112141
OpenAlexW2351801363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.