Suppr超能文献

流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)在一组自我转诊的有抑郁症状的老年人样本中的效标效度。

The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a sample of self-referred elders with depressive symptomatology.

作者信息

Haringsma R, Engels G I, Beekman A T F, Spinhoven Ph

机构信息

Section of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;19(6):558-63. doi: 10.1002/gps.1130.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) was assessed in a group of elderly Dutch community-residents who were self-referred to a prevention program for depression.

METHODS

Paper-and-pencil administration of the CES-D to 318 elders (55-85 years). Criterion validity was evaluated with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a clinical diagnostic interview based on DSM-IV. Sensitivity and specificity for various cut-off scores of CES-D were compared with the DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) and with clinically relevant depression (CRD), a composite diagnosis of MDD, subthreshold depression or dysthymia. Furthermore the characteristics of true versus false positives were analyzed.

RESULTS

For MDD, the optimal cut-off score was 25, (sensitivity 85%, specificity 64%, and positive predicted value of 63%). For CRD, the optimal cut-off was 22 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 60%, and positive predicted value 77%). True positives, MDD and CRD, reported significantly more anxiety symptomatology and more co-morbid anxiety disorders, false positives reported more previous depressive episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

The criterion validity of the CES-D for MDD and CRD was satisfactory in this semi-clinical sample of elders. Subjects scoring >/=25 constitute a target group for further diagnostic assessment in order to determine appropriate treatment.

摘要

背景

在一组自我转诊至抑郁症预防项目的荷兰老年社区居民中,评估了流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)的效标效度。

方法

对318名年龄在55至85岁之间的老年人进行CES-D的纸笔测试。使用基于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)的临床诊断访谈工具——迷你国际神经精神访谈(MINI)来评估效标效度。将CES-D不同临界值的敏感性和特异性与DSM-IV重度抑郁症(MDD)以及临床相关抑郁症(CRD,MDD、亚阈值抑郁症或心境恶劣的综合诊断)进行比较。此外,还分析了真阳性与假阳性的特征。

结果

对于MDD,最佳临界值为25(敏感性85%,特异性64%,阳性预测值63%)。对于CRD,最佳临界值为22(敏感性84%,特异性60%,阳性预测值77%)。真阳性(MDD和CRD)报告的焦虑症状和共病焦虑症显著更多,假阳性报告的既往抑郁发作更多。

结论

在这个老年半临床样本中,CES-D对MDD和CRD的效标效度令人满意。得分≥25的受试者构成进一步诊断评估的目标群体,以便确定合适的治疗方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验