Spielmans Glen I, McFall Joseph P
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, New York, USA.
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006 Nov;194(11):845-52. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000244554.91259.27.
Two scales of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Scale are frequently used in antidepressant trials. No research has systematically addressed how CGI change compares to change on established measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, or Beck Depression Inventory. The current meta-analysis examined 75 antidepressant trials in which the CGI was used along with at least one other popular depression measure. The CGI-Severity scale was significantly more conservative than the HAM-D in rating change in double-blind trials, but not in open trials. The Beck Depression Inventory was significantly more conservative than the CGI-Severity. The CGI-Improvement scale was significantly more liberal than the HAM-D or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Rater bias or scale content may explain differences between measures. Given the often substantial differences between instruments, researchers should use a variety of measures rather than relying on any single tool in assessing treatment response.
临床总体印象量表（CGI）的两个分量表常用于抗抑郁试验。尚无研究系统探讨过CGI变化与汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表（HAM-D）、蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表或贝克抑郁量表等既定测量方法的变化相比情况如何。当前的荟萃分析考察了75项抗抑郁试验，这些试验中CGI与至少一项其他常用抑郁测量方法同时使用。在双盲试验中，CGI严重程度量表在评定变化方面比HAM-D更为保守，但在开放试验中并非如此。贝克抑郁量表比CGI严重程度量表更为保守。CGI改善量表比HAM-D或蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表更为宽松。评分者偏差或量表内容可能解释了各测量方法之间的差异。鉴于各工具之间往往存在显著差异，研究人员在评估治疗反应时应使用多种测量方法，而不是依赖任何单一工具。
