Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36269712›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Combining the GP's assessment and the PHQ-9 questionnaire leads to more reliable and clinically relevant diagnoses in primary care.

Clara Teusen, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Victoria von Schrottenberg, Feyza Gökce, Gabriele Pitschel-Walz, Peter Henningsen, Jochen Gensichen, Antonius Schneider, POKAL-Study-Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Clara TeusenInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2947-355X
Alexander HapfelmeierInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Victoria von SchrottenbergInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Feyza GökceInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Gabriele Pitschel-WalzInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Peter HenningsenDept. of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital TU Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Jochen GensichenInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.
Antonius SchneiderInstitute of General Practice and Health Services Research, TUM School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2847-8626
POKAL-Study-Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening questionnaires are not sufficient to improve diagnostic quality of depression in primary care. The additional consideration of the general practitioner's (GP's) assessment could improve the accuracy of depression diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine whether the GP rating supports a reliable depression diagnosis indicated by the PHQ-9 over a period of three months.

methodsWe performed a secondary data analysis from a previous study. PHQ-9 scores of primary care patients were collected at the time of recruitment (t1) and during a follow-up 3 months later (t2). At t1 GPs independently made a subjective assessment whether they considered the patient depressive (yes/no). Two corresponding groups with concordant and discordant PHQ-9 and GP ratings at t1 were defined. Reliability of the PHQ-9 results at t1 and t2 was assessed within these groups and within the entire sample by Cohen's Kappa, Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots.

results364 consecutive patients from 12 practices in the region of Upper Bavaria/Germany participated in this longitudinal study. 279 patients (76.6%) sent back the questionnaire at t2. Concordance of GP rating and PHQ-9 at t1 led to higher replicability of PHQ-9 results between t1 and t2. The reliability of PHQ-9 was higher in the concordant subgroup (κ = 0.507) compared to the discordant subgroup (κ = 0.211) (p = 0.064). The Bland-Altman Plot showed that the deviation of PHQ-9 scores at t1 and t2 decreased by about 15% in the concordant subgroup. Pearson's correlation coefficient between PHQ-9 scores at t1 and t2 increased significantly if the GP rating was concordant with the PHQ-9 at t1 (r = 0.671) compared to the discordant subgroup (r = 0.462) (p = 0.044).

conclusionsThe combination of PHQ-9 and GP rating might improve diagnostic decision making regarding depression in general practices. PHQ-9 positive results might be more reliable and accurate, when a concordant GP rating is considered.

Indexed as

Patient Health QuestionnairePrimary Health CareHumansLongitudinal StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36269712
PMCPMC9586376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.