ArticleDepression and anxiety2019
Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression: An assessment in three longitudinal datasets.
Article in Depression and anxiety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review exploring the quality of life of patients undergoing mental disorders treatment in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Review
- Early Change as a Predictor of Treatment Outcome in Patients with a Personality Disorder.Administration and policy in mental health · 2024Article
- Investigating the Efficacy and Experiences With Narrative Exposure Therapy in Severe Mentally Ill Patients With Comorbid Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Receiving Flexible Assertive Community Treatment: A Mixed Methods Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Treating patients with severe mental illness with narrative exposure therapy for comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder.BJPsych open · 2020Article
- Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression: An assessment in three longitudinal datasets.Depression and anxiety · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks.
methodsThree sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively.
resultsIn two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found. LIMITATIONS: The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery. DISCUSSION: Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures.
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.