Almeida O P, Almeida S A
University of Western Australia, Queen Elisabeth II Medical Centre, Perth, WA 6009, Australia.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999 Oct;14(10):858-65. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1166(199910)14:10<858::aid-gps35>3.0.co;2-8.
To determine the validity of short Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) versions for the detection of a major depressive episode according to ICD-10 criteria for research and DSM-IV.
Cross-sectional evaluation of depressive symptoms in a sample of elderly subjects with short GDS versions. Different GDS cutoff points were used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the diagnosis of major depressive episode. Internal consistency of the scales was estimated with the Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
Mental Health Unit for the Elderly of 'Santa Casa' Medical School in São Paulo, Brazil.
Sixty-four consecutive outpatients aged 60 or over who met criteria for depressive disorder (current or in remission). Subjects with severe sensory impairment, aphasia or Mini-Mental State score lower than 10 were excluded from the study.
ICD-10 Checklist of Symptoms, GDS with 15, 10, 4 and 1 items, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for research and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.
The use of the cutoff point 4/5 for the GDS-15 produced sensitivity and specificity rates of 92.7% and 65.2% respectively, and positive and negative predictive values of 82.6% and 83.3% respectively when ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for major depressive episode were used as the 'gold standard'. Similarly, rates of 97.0%, 54.8%, 69.6% and 94.4% were found when DSM-IV was the comparing diagnostic criteria. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the cutoff point 6/7 were 80.5%, 78. 3%, 86.8% and 69.2% according to ICD-10, and 84.8%, 67.7%, 73.7% and 80.8% respectively according to DSM-IV. Intermediate values were found for the cutoff point 5/6. The best fit for GDS-10 was the cutoff point 4/5, which produced a sensitivity rate of 80.5%, specificity of 78.3%, positive predictive value of 86.8% and negative predictive value of 60.2% according to ICD-10 diagnosis of a major depressive episode. Similarly, rates of 84.8%, 67.7%, 73.7% and 80.8% were found when DSM-IV criteria for major depression were used. GDS-4 cutoff point of 2/3 was associated with a sensitivity rate of 80.5%, specificity of 78.3%, positive predictive value of 86. 8% and negative predictive value of 69.2% when compared to ICD-10. Again, rates of 84.8%, 67.7%, 73.7% and 80.8% respectively were found when the criteria used were based on DSM-IV. GDS-1 had low sensitivity (61.0% and 63.6% for ICD-10 and DSM-IV respectively) and negative predictive value (56.7% and 67.6% for ICD-10 and DSM-IV respectively), suggesting that this question is of limited clinical utility in screening for depression. GDS-15 (rho=0.82), GDS-10 (rho=0.82) and GDS-4 (rho=0.81) scores were highly correlated with subjects' scores on the MADRS. Reliability coefficients were 0.81 for GDS-15, 0.75 for GDS-10 and 0.41 for GDS-4.
GDS-15, GDS-10 and GDS-4 are good screening instruments for major depression as defined by both the ICD-10 and DSM-IV. The shorter four- and one-item versions are of limited clinical value due to low reliability and failure to monitor the severity of the depressive episode. General practitioners may benefit from the systematic use of short GDS versions to increase detection rates of depression among the elderly. (c) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
根据国际疾病分类第10版(ICD - 10)研究用诊断标准及精神疾病诊断与统计手册第4版(DSM - IV),确定老年抑郁量表(GDS)短版本用于检测重度抑郁发作的有效性。
对使用GDS短版本的老年受试者样本中的抑郁症状进行横断面评估。采用不同的GDS临界值来估计诊断重度抑郁发作的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。用克朗巴赫α系数估计量表的内部一致性。
巴西圣保罗“圣卡塔琳娜”医学院老年心理健康科。
64名连续的60岁及以上符合抑郁障碍标准(当前或缓解期)的门诊患者。排除有严重感觉障碍、失语或简易精神状态评分低于10分的受试者。
ICD - 10症状清单、15项、10项、4项和1项的GDS、蒙哥马利 - 阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表(MADRS)、ICD - 10研究用诊断标准和DSM - IV诊断标准。
以ICD - 10重度抑郁发作诊断标准为 “金标准” 时,GDS - 15临界值为4/5时,敏感性和特异性分别为92.7%和65.2%,阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为82.6%和83.3%。同样,以DSM - IV作为比较诊断标准时,相应比例分别为97.0%、54.8%、69.6%和94.4%。根据ICD - 10,临界值为6/7时,敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为80.5%、78.3%、86.8%和69.2%;根据DSM - IV,相应比例分别为84.8%、67.7%、73.7%和80.8%。临界值为5/6时为中间值。GDS - 10的最佳临界值为4/5,根据ICD - 10诊断重度抑郁发作时,敏感性为80.5%,特异性为78.3% , 阳性预测值为86.8%,阴性预测值为60.2%。同样,以DSM - IV重度抑郁标准为依据时,相应比例分别为84.8%、67.7%、73.7%和80.8%。与ICD - 10相比,GDS - 4临界值为2/ .3时,敏感性为80.5%,特异性为78.3%,阳性预测值为86.8%,阴性预测值为69.2%。同样,以DSM - IV标准为依据时,相应比例分别为84.8%、67.7%、73.7%和80.8%。GDS - 1敏感性较低(ICD - 10和DSM - IV分别为61.0%和63.6%),阴性预测值也较低(ICD - 10和DSM - IV分别为56.7%和67.6%),表明该问题在筛查抑郁症时临床实用性有限。GDS - 15(rho = 0.82)、GDS - 10(rho = 0.82)和GDS - 4(rho = 0.81)得分与受试者的MADRS得分高度相关。GDS - 15的信度系数为0.81,GDS - 10为0.75,GDS - 4为0.41。
GDS - 15、GDS - 10和GDS - 4是ICD - 10和DSM - IV定义的重度抑郁症的良好筛查工具。较短的4项和1项版本由于可靠性低且无法监测抑郁发作的严重程度,临床价值有限。全科医生系统使用GDS短版本可能有助于提高老年人抑郁症的检出率。(c)1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.