Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27703765›Full record

ReviewBJPsych open2016

Case finding and screening clinical utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 and PHQ-2) for depression in primary care: a diagnostic meta-analysis of 40 studies.

Alex J Mitchell, Motahare Yadegarfar, John Gill, Brendon Stubbs

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJPsych open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 147 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing 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.

NCT04811521 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Patient-centered Treatment of Anxiety After Low-Risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Room

TypeinterventionalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2021 to 2025Enrolled375ConditionsGeneralized Anxiety Disorder, Chest Pain, PanicArmsPrimary care follow-up, Online Self-Administered Anxiety Management Program plus Peer Support Guidance, Therapist-Administered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
NCT06797076 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating an App-Based Treatment for Migraine: The Health enSuite Migraine Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorIWK Health CentreRan2026 to 2027Enrolled415ConditionsMigraine, Migraine With Aura, Migraine Without AuraArmsHealth enSuite Headache
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Gender Differences and Comorbidities in Major Depression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

87 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

4 authors.

Alex J Mitchell, MD, Department of Cancer Studies, University of Leicester, and Department of Psycho-Oncology, Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Motahare Yadegarfar, MBChB, Medical School, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
John Gill, MBChB, Medical School, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Brendon Stubbs, PhD, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, and Physiotherapy Department, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is the most commonly used measure to screen for depression in primary care but there is still lack of clarity about its accuracy and optimal scoring method.

aimsTo determine via meta-analysis the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-9-linear, PHQ-9-algorithm and PHQ-2 questions to detect major depressive disorder (MDD) among adults.

methodWe systematically searched major electronic databases from inception until June 2015. Articles were included that reported the accuracy of PHQ-9 or PHQ-2 questions for diagnosing MDD in primary care defined according to standard classification systems. We carried out a meta-analysis, meta-regression, moderator and sensitivity analysis.

resultsOverall, 26 publications reporting on 40 individual studies were included representing 26 902 people (median 502, s.d.=693.7) including 14 760 unique adults of whom 14.3% had MDD. The methodological quality of the included articles was acceptable. The meta-analytic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PHQ-9-linear and the PHQ-2 was significantly higher than the PHQ-9-algorithm, a difference that was maintained in head-to-head meta-analysis of studies. Our best estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 81.3% (95% CI 71.6-89.3) and 85.3% (95% CI 81.0-89.1), 56.8% (95% CI 41.2-71.8) and 93.3% (95% CI 87.5-97.3) and 89.3% (95% CI 81.5-95.1) and 75.9% (95% CI 70.1-81.3) for the PHQ-9-linear, PHQ-9-algorithm and PHQ-2 respectively. For case finding (ruling in a diagnosis), none of the methods were suitable but for screening (ruling out non-cases), all methods were encouraging with good clinical utility, although the cut-off threshold must be carefully chosen.

conclusionsThe PHQ can be used as an initial first step assessment in primary care and the PHQ-2 is adequate for this purpose with good acceptability. However, neither the PHQ-2 nor the PHQ-9 can be used to confirm a clinical diagnosis (case finding). DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.

Identifiers

PMID27703765
PMCPMC4995584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.