ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2023
Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST): A validation study of BDST against the reference standard of PHQ-9.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Case finding for low mood is essential in primary care, but it is time-consuming using current depression inventories. The Burns Depression Scale Today (BDST) is a short, simple inventory which assesses mood for today, and we aimed to validate it in this study. Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with emotional distress seen in a single primary care clinic by one of the authors over 22 months were eligible for this retrospective audit ( Results: The median age of patients was 35 years, and 63% of the cohort were women. The median BDST score was 8, indicative of moderately low mood, and the median PHQ-9 score was 15, indicative of moderately severe depression. For patients with a BDST score ≥6, the likelihood ratio of a positive test was 2.67. The sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89%-96%) and the specificity was 68% (95% CI: 60%-76%). The area under the curve was 84% (95% CI: 80%-87%). Conclusion: This audit validates BDST against PHQ-9 and finds it an excellent case-finding tool compared to PHQ-9. This is the first validation study of BDST.
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.