Trial reportGynecologic oncology2017
Comparison of four brief depression screening instruments in ovarian cancer patients: Diagnostic accuracy using traditional versus alternative cutpoints.
Trial report in Gynecologic oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Distress Management, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2019Guideline
- Effect of minocycline on changes in affective behaviors, cognitive function, and inflammation in breast cancer survivors undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Trial
- Article
- The Psychometric Properties of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) for Iranian Cancer Patients.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Comparison of Fatigue, Pain, and Depression in Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease and Cancer-Symptom Burden and Clusters.Journal of pain and symptom management · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe compared the diagnostic accuracy of 4 depression screening scales, using traditional and alternative scoring methods, to the gold standard Structured Clinical Interview-DSM IV major depressive episode (MDE) in ovarian cancer patients on active treatment.
methodsAt the beginning of a new chemotherapy regimen, ovarian cancer patients completed the following surveys on the same day: the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Beck Depression Inventory Fast-Screen for Primary Care (BDI-FastScreen), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and a 1-item screener ("Are you depressed?"). Each instrument's sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value were calculated with respect to major depression. To control for antidepressant use, the analyses were re-run for a subsample of patients who were not on antidepressants.
resultsOne hundred fifty-three ovarian cancer patients were enrolled into the study. Only fourteen participants met SCID criteria for current MDE (9%). When evaluating all patients regardless of whether they were already being treated with antidepressants, the two-phase scoring approach with an alternate cutpoint of 6 on the PHQ-9 had the best positive predictive value (PPV=32%). Using a traditional cutpoint of 16 on the CES-D resulted in the lowest PPV (5%); using a more stringent cutpoint of 22 resulted in a slightly improved but still poor PPV, 7%.
conclusionsScreening with a two-phase PHQ-9 proved best overall, and its accuracy was improved when used with patients who were not already being treated with antidepressants.
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.