Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32642320›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2020

Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in neurologic populations.

Kimberly G Williams, Michael Sanderson, Nathalie Jette, Scott B Patten

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04979546 (Using Patient-Reported Outcomes To Improve the Care of People With Multiple Sclerosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT04979546 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes To Improve the Care of People With Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AlbertaRan2021 to 2024Enrolled237ConditionsMultiple Sclerosis, Anxiety, Depression, Patient SatisfactionArmsIntensive Use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Open PROM Availability to Treating Neurologist, Conservative Use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Blinded PROM Availability to Treating Neurologist
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kimberly G WilliamsDepartment of Psychiatry (KGW, SBP) and Department of Community Health Sciences (MS, SBP), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and Department of Neurology (NJ), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Michael SandersonDepartment of Psychiatry (KGW, SBP) and Department of Community Health Sciences (MS, SBP), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and Department of Neurology (NJ), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Nathalie JetteDepartment of Psychiatry (KGW, SBP) and Department of Community Health Sciences (MS, SBP), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and Department of Neurology (NJ), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Scott B PattenDepartment of Psychiatry (KGW, SBP) and Department of Community Health Sciences (MS, SBP), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and Department of Neurology (NJ), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause of symptom overlap, there is uncertainty about the validity of depression rating scales in neurologic populations. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for detecting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-defined major depressive episodes in people with neurologic conditions.

methodsParticipants were recruited from outpatient clinics for multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, migraine, Parkinson disease, and stroke for this cross-sectional study. Participants were administered a questionnaire (this included the PHQ-9), chart review, and a follow-up telephone interview. The Structured Clinical Interview for Depression was used as the reference standard for psychiatric diagnoses. The performance of PHQ-9 was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and receiver operator curve analysis.

resultsAll neurologic subpopulations had a specificity greater than 78% and sensitivity greater than 79% at a cut-point of 10. Using a random-effects model, the I-squared value was 13.7%, and Tau

conclusionsDespite theoretical concerns about its validity, the PHQ-9 performed well at its standard cut-point of 10. Consistent with the literature, being able to use a validated, brief tool that is available publicly should improve case finding of depression in neurologic populations. When considering clinical practicality along with the findings of this analyzed, this study confirmed that the PHQ-9 is valid in a general outpatient neurologic population.

Identifiers

PMID32642320
PMCPMC7292563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.