ArticlePsychiatry investigation2017
Clinical Validation of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-6, and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-5: Results from the Clinical Research Center for Depression Study.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Machine-Learning-Algorithm-Based Prediction Model for Psychotic Symptoms in Patients with Depressive Disorder.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Issues of Depressive Disorders from Kraepelinian Dualism to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.Psychiatry investigation · 2019Article
- Process Evaluation of a Pilot Intervention for Psychosocial Rehabilitation for Service Users with Schizophrenia in North West Province, South Africa.Community mental health journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the psychotic depression assessment scale (PDAS), which includes the six-item melancholia subscale from the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-6) and the five-item psychosis subscale from the brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS-5). Data from the Clinical Research Center for Depression (CRESCEND) study, which is a 52-week naturalistic trial, were analyzed.
methodsFifty-two patients with psychotic depression from the CRESCEND study met our inclusion criteria. The patients underwent the following psychometric assessments: the PDAS, including HAMD-6 and BPRS-5, the clinical global impression scales, the HAMD, the positive symptom subscale, and the negative symptom subscale. Assessments were performed at the baseline and then at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 52. Spearman correlation analyses were used to assess the clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS.
resultsThe clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS, including HAMD-6 and BPRS-5, were acceptable, with the exception of the clinical responsiveness of the PDAS for positive symptoms and the clinical responsiveness of BPRS-5 for negative symptoms.
conclusionThe clinical relevance of the PDAS has been confirmed and this clinical validation will enhance its clinical utility and availability.
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.