ArticleBrain and behavior2021
Reliability and validity of clinically useful depression outcome scale identifying mixed features in patients with manic episode.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traces of health-A landscape design task as a diagnostic aid for detecting mental burden? A qualitative focus group study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Reliability and validity of clinically useful depression outcome scale identifying mixed features in patients with manic episode.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
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
objectivesThis study aims to explore the reliability, validity, and feasibility of Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) in screening mixed features in patients diagnosed with mania.
methodsA total of 109 patients with (hypo-) manic episode were recruited. The reliability of Chinese version of CUDOS (CUDOS-C) were analyzed with Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Spearman correlation coefficient was used to analyze the validity by comparing the correlation between CUDOS-C and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), 32-item Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32). The score of MINI (hypo-) manic episode with mixed features-DSM-5 Module-Chinese version(MINI-M-C) ≥ 2 was considered as the gold standard of mixed features, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the optimal cut-off values of CUDOS-C score.
resultsThe Cronbach's alpha value of CUDOS-C was 0.898, and the ICC of CUDOS-C test-retest was 0.880 (95% CI: 0.812-0.923, p < .05).The CUDOS-C score was significantly correlated with PHQ-9 score (r = 0.893, p = .000), but not with HCL-32 score(r = 0.088, p = .364).The area under ROC curve was 0.909 (95% CI: 0.855 to 0.963, p < .001) for CUDOS-C identifying mixed features in mania. The optimal cut-off value was 11 with a sensitivity of 0.854 and a specificity of 0.868. The CUDOS-C (score ≥ 12) identified 40.4% of the patients with mixed features, which was higher than those diagnosed by clinicians (18.3%) and screened using MINI-M-C (37.6%).
conclusionsThe results indicate the CUDOS-C is a reliable and valid self-administered questionnaire for assessing depressive symptoms and screening patients with mixed mania.
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.