Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28404542›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017

Immediate Mood Scaler: Tracking Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Using a Novel Mobile Mood Scale.

Mor Nahum, Thomas M Van Vleet, Vikaas S Sohal, Julie J Mirzabekov, Vikram R Rao, Deanna L Wallace, Morgan B Lee, Heather Dawes, Alit Stark-Inbar, Joshua Thomas Jordan and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06480968 (Safety and Tolerability of CTH120, First-in-human Phase I Study Encompassing Three Parts), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT06480968 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Safety and Tolerability of CTH120, First-in-human Phase I Study Encompassing Three Parts: Single and Multiple Ascending Doses and Potential Food Interaction

TypeinterventionalSponsorConnecta Therapeutics, S.L.Ran2023 to 2024Enrolled76ConditionsFragile X SyndromeArmsCTH120, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mor NahumSchool of OT, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-6486
Thomas M Van VleetPosit Science Corporation, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1639-860X
Vikaas S SohalDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2238-4186
Julie J MirzabekovUC Berkeley- UCSF Joint Medical Program, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8684-149X
Vikram R RaoDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-2638
Deanna L WallaceDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4309-2737
Morgan B LeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6936-0109
Heather DawesDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-1602
Alit Stark-InbarPosit Science Corporation, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6434-6447
Joshua Thomas JordanCalifornia School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4714-1893
Bruno BiagiantiPosit Science Corporation, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5955-3019
Michael MerzenichPosit Science Corporation, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1811-3428
Edward F ChangDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2480-4700
University of California, San Francisco · USPosit Science (United States) · USAlliant International University · USHebrew University of Jerusalem · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMood disorders are dynamic disorders characterized by multimodal symptoms. Clinical assessment of symptoms is currently limited to relatively sparse, routine clinic visits, requiring retrospective recollection of symptoms present in the weeks preceding the visit. Novel advances in mobile tools now support ecological momentary assessment of mood, conducted frequently using mobile devices, outside the clinical setting. Such mood assessment may help circumvent problems associated with infrequent reporting and better characterize the dynamic presentation of mood symptoms, informing the delivery of novel treatment options.

objectivesThe aim of our study was to validate the Immediate Mood Scaler (IMS), a newly developed, iPad-deliverable 22-item self-report tool designed to capture current mood states.

methodsA total of 110 individuals completed standardized questionnaires (Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item [PHQ-9]; generalized anxiety disorder, 7-Item [GAD-7]; and rumination scale) and IMS at baseline. Of the total, 56 completed at least one additional session of IMS, and 17 completed one additional administration of PHQ-9 and GAD-7. We conducted exploratory Principal Axis Factor Analysis to assess dimensionality of IMS, and computed zero-order correlations to investigate associations between IMS and standardized scales. Linear Mixed Model (LMM) was used to assess IMS stability across time and to test predictability of PHQ-9 and GAD-7 score by IMS.

resultsStrong correlations were found between standard mood scales and the IMS at baseline (r=.57-.59, P<.001). A factor analysis revealed a 12-item IMS ("IMS-12") with two factors: a "depression" factor and an "anxiety" factor. IMS-12 depression subscale was more strongly correlated with PHQ-9 than with GAD-7 (z=1.88, P=.03), but the reverse pattern was not found for IMS-12 anxiety subscale. IMS-12 showed less stability over time compared with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 (.65 vs .91), potentially reflecting more sensitivity to mood dynamics. In addition, IMS-12 ratings indicated that individuals with mild to moderate depression had greater mood fluctuations compared with individuals with severe depression (.42 vs .79; P=.04). Finally, IMS-12 significantly contributed to the prediction of subsequent PHQ-9 (beta=1.03, P=.02) and GAD-7 scores (beta =.93, P=.01).

conclusionsCollectively, these data suggest that the 12-item IMS (IMS-12) is a valid tool to assess momentary mood symptoms related to anxiety and depression. Although IMS-12 shows good correlation with standardized scales, it further captures mood fluctuations better and significantly adds to the prediction of the scales. Results are discussed in the context of providing continuous symptom quantification that may inform novel treatment options and support personalized treatment plans.

Indexed as

anxietydepressionecological momentary assessmentmobilemood disorders

Identifiers

PMID28404542
PMCPMC5406620
OpenAlexW2607088157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.