ArticlePloS one2021
Cross-cultural evaluation of the French version of the Delusion Assessment Scale (DAS) and Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS).
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDDPsy), compared to nonpsychotic MDD, involves an increased risk of suicide and failure to achieve treatment response. Symptom scales can be useful to assess patients with MDDPsy. The aim of the present study was to validate French versions of the Delusion Assessment Scale (DAS) and Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS).
methodsOne hundred patients were included. The scales were filled out by psychiatrists. Data from participants who accepted a second interview were used for inter-judge reliability. The scalability and psychometric properties of both scales were assessed.
resultsData from 94 patients were used. Owing to low score variability between patients, the predefined threshold for scalability (≥0.40) was not reached for both scales. Factorial analysis of the DAS identified five factors, different from those of the original version. Five factors were also identified in the PDAS, of which two comprised items from the HDRS and the other three items from the BPRS. Floor and ceiling effects were observed in both scales, due in part to the construction of certain subscales. Unlike the PDAS, the DAS had good internal consistency. Multiple correlations were observed between the DAS dimensions but none between those of the PDAS. Both scales showed good inter-judge reliability. Convergent validity analyses showed correlations with HDRS, BPRS and CGI. LIMITATIONS: Inter-judge reliability was calculated from a relatively small number of volunteers.
conclusionsThe good psychometric properties of the French versions of the DAS and PDAS could help in assessing MDDPsy, in particular its psychotic features, and hence improve response to treatment and prognosis.
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.