Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36928675›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Reliability of the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess relapse in depression in primary care patients.

Larisa Duffy, Louise Marston, Gemma Lewis, Glyn Lewis

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Larisa DuffyDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0093-3877
Louise MarstonResearch Dept. of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gemma LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 13/115/48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe are not aware of a simple and short structured measure that retrospectively assesses time to relapse for depression. We developed the retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (rCIS-R) to assess depression relapse in the previous 12 weeks, for use in a clinical trial of maintenance antidepressant treatment. We assessed test-retest reliability and construct validity in relation to a Global Rating Question (GRQ) about worsening mood, participants stopping their study medication and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores.

methodsIn our study 444 participants provided data for rCIS-R, GRQ and PHQ-9 and 396 participants completed rCIS-R on two occasions about 30 minutes apart. The reliability study was nested within a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER).

resultsWe found substantial test-retest agreement for the rCIS-R definition of relapse (kappa 0.84 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.97)), for individual sections and timing of relapse (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.94 (95%CI 0.92 to 0.95)). Comparison of relapse with GRQ, stopping study medication and PHQ-9 supported the construct validity of the rCIS-R.

conclusionsThe rCIS-R provides a reliable way of assessing relapse of depression over the previous 12 weeks. Its brevity, self-report format, simplicity of scoring and absence of training requirement makes it attractive to use in randomised controlled trials.

Indexed as

DepressionPrimary Health CareHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36928675
PMCPMC10019660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read35
identifiers read8
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.