Observational studyAmerican journal of nephrology2016
Prognostic Utility of a Self-Reported Depression Questionnaire versus Clinician-Based Assessment on Renal Outcomes.
Observational study in American journal of nephrology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence of depression in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Fatigue in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease: Correlates and Association with Kidney Outcomes.American journal of nephrology · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic utility of self-administered depression scales in chronic kidney disease (CKD) independent of a clinician-based major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnosis is neither clearly established nor are the optimal cutoff scores for predicting outcomes. The overlap between symptoms of depression and chronic disease raises the question of whether a cutoff score on a depression scale can be substituted for a time-consuming diagnostic interview to prognosticate risk.
methodsThe 16-item Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology-Self Report scale (QIDS-SR16) was administered to 266 consecutive outpatients with non-dialysis CKD, followed prospectively for 12 months for an apriori composite outcome of death or dialysis or hospitalization. Association of QIDS-SR16 best cutoff score, determined by receiver/responder operating characteristics curves, with outcomes was investigated using survival analysis. The effect modification of an interview-based clinician MDD diagnosis on this association was ascertained.
resultsThere were 126 composite events. A QIDS-SR16 cutoff ≥8 had the best prognostic accuracy, hazards ratio (HR) = 1.77, 95% CI 1.24-2.53, p = 0.002. This cutoff remained significantly associated with outcomes even after controlling for comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin and serum albumin, adjusted HR (aHR) = 1.80, 95% CI 1.23-2.62, p = 0.002, and performed similarly to a clinician-based MDD diagnosis (aHR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.14-2.68). Adjustment for MDD conferred the association of QIDS-SR16 with outcomes no longer significant.
conclusionsQIDS-SR16 cutoff ≥8 adds to the prognostic information available to practicing nephrologists during routine clinic visits from comorbidities and laboratory data. This cutoff score performs similar to a clinician diagnosis of MDD and provides a feasible and time-saving alternative to an interview-based MDD diagnosis for determining prognosis in CKD patients.
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.