Pignone Michael P, Gaynes Bradley N, Rushton Jerry L, Burchell Catherine Mills, Orleans C Tracy, Mulrow Cynthia D, Lohr Kathleen N
University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 2002 May 21;136(10):765-76. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-10-200205210-00013.
To clarify whether screening adults for depression in primary care settings improves recognition, treatment, and clinical outcomes.
The MEDLINE database was searched from 1994 through August 2001. Other relevant articles were located through other systematic reviews; focused searches of MEDLINE from 1966 to 1994; the Cochrane depression, anxiety, and neurosis database; hand searches of bibliographies; and extensive peer review.
The researchers reviewed randomized trials conducted in primary care settings that examined the effect of screening for depression on identification, treatment, or health outcomes, including trials that tested integrated, systematic support for treatment after identification of depression.
A single reviewer abstracted the relevant data from the included articles. A second reviewer checked the accuracy of the tables against the original articles.
Compared with usual care, feedback of depression screening results to providers generally increased recognition of depressive illness in adults. Studies examining the effect of screening and feedback on treatment rates and clinical outcomes had mixed results. Many trials lacked power to detect clinically important differences in outcomes. Meta-analysis suggests that overall, screening and feedback reduced the risk for persistent depression (summary relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95]). Programs that integrated interventions aimed at improving recognition and treatment of patients with depression and that incorporated quality improvements in clinic systems had stronger effects than programs of feedback alone.
Compared with usual care, screening for depression can improve outcomes, particularly when screening is coupled with system changes that help ensure adequate treatment and follow-up.
明确在初级保健机构对成年人进行抑郁症筛查是否能提高识别率、治疗率及临床疗效。
检索了1994年至2001年8月的MEDLINE数据库。通过其他系统评价、对1966年至1994年MEDLINE的重点检索、Cochrane抑郁症、焦虑症和神经症数据库、文献手工检索以及广泛的同行评审找到了其他相关文章。
研究人员回顾了在初级保健机构进行的随机试验,这些试验考察了抑郁症筛查对识别、治疗或健康结局的影响,包括对抑郁症识别后进行综合、系统治疗支持的试验。
由一名评审员从纳入的文章中提取相关数据。另一名评审员对照原文检查表格的准确性。
与常规护理相比,向提供者反馈抑郁症筛查结果通常能提高成年人对抑郁症的识别率。考察筛查和反馈对治疗率及临床结局影响的研究结果不一。许多试验缺乏检测结局临床重要差异的效力。荟萃分析表明,总体而言,筛查和反馈降低了持续性抑郁症的风险(汇总相对风险,0.87 [95% CI,0.79至0.95])。整合旨在改善抑郁症患者识别和治疗的干预措施并在临床系统中纳入质量改进的项目比单纯反馈项目的效果更强。
与常规护理相比,抑郁症筛查可改善结局,特别是当筛查与有助于确保充分治疗和随访的系统改变相结合时。