ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Patient-rated scales improve the classification accuracy for patients with depression and anxiety disorder: a linear discriminant analysis.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe current study aimed to investigate the performances of clinical scales rated by clinicians and patients as well as cognitive function tests in distinguishing patients with affective and anxiety disorders from healthy controls (HCs).
methodsWe recruited a total of 122 subjects, comprising 24 patients with bipolar disorder (BD), 34 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), 29 patients with anxiety disorder (AD), and 35 matched HCs. Three clinician-rated scales and five patient-rated scales were used to quantify clinical symptoms, while four cognitive tests were employed to measure cognitive functions in all subjects. Fisher's discriminant analysis (FDA) was employed to distinguish patients from HCs, as well as to discriminate patient sub-groups from each other. In the FDA model, the prior probability of each group was set as 0.5 in the two-group classification and 0.25 in the four-group classification.
resultsThe results showed that patient-rated scales achieved higher classification accuracies than clinician-rated scales in identifying MDD and AD from HCs. In contrast, cognitive tests exhibited the lowest accuracy.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that patient-rated scales might improve the classification accuracy for patients with MDD and AD.
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.