Choi YunHee, Mayer Tom G, Williams Mark J, Gatchel Robert J
PRIDE Research Foundation, 5701 Maple Ave., Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75235, USA.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1175-82. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.037. Epub 2013 Nov 10.
High prevalence rates of depression have been found in patients with chronic spinal disorder (CSD). The biopsychosocial model has become widely adopted and, with it, the role of psychopathology in the development and/or exacerbation of CSD has become increasingly recognized. Standardized diagnostic criteria, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), have been used to diagnose major depressive disorder (MDD). Many measures of MDD (and depressive symptom inventories) have been developed during the past 50 years, but their comparative utility in CSD populations is still unclear.
To systemically compare the performance of depression screening questionnaires in detecting MDD among a large sample of patients with CSD.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study comparing the screening ability of four popular depression measures for diagnosing MDD against the "gold standard" Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I), using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in a CSD population.
A consecutive cohort of 546 patients with CSD admitted to an interdisciplinary functional restoration program.
Sensitivity, specificity, ROC curves, area under the curve (AUC), and optimal cutoff points that are most closely related to the prevalence rates of MDD, with balanced sensitivity and specificity analysis.
Using the SCID-I diagnosis as a "gold standard," the ability of four screening measures in detecting MDD were compared. These included: the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI); Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD); 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Module (PHQ-9); and the Short Form-36 (SF-36).
Of 542 CSD patients, 331 (61.1%) were diagnosed with MDD by the SCID-I. Results of the ROC analysis revealed that the BDI (AUC 0.768), HRSD (AUC 0.796), and PHQ-9 (AUC 0.768) have similar abilities to discriminate between depressed and nondepressed patients in this population. These depression measures outperformed the two mental health scales derived from the SF-36 (Mental Component Summary score/5-Item Mental Health Index; AUC 0.679-0.715). The optimal cut-off scores of 15 (for the BDI), 17 (for the HRSD), and 10 (for the PHQ-9) were also determined. Although the greatest overall accuracy (sensitivity of 81.3% and specificity of 65.4%) was obtained with the HRSD, it is the only clinician-administered instrument. Self-report measures of depression (the BDI and PHQ-9) showed comparable abilities to detect depression, only slightly less than the HRSD.
Compared to the HRSD, both BDI and PHQ-9 are relatively short and easy to self-administer. The cut-off scores established in this study may be used to reliably determine whether a person should be evaluated more thoroughly for an MDD diagnosis. Using an acknowledged "gold standard," the HRSD, BDI and PHQ-9 showed similar validity to recommend their use for future clinical and research purposes. The SF-36 is less appropriate for diagnosing MDD.
慢性脊柱疾病(CSD)患者中抑郁症的患病率较高。生物心理社会模型已被广泛采用,随之而来的是,精神病理学在CSD发生和/或加重过程中的作用也越来越受到认可。标准化诊断标准,如《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM),已被用于诊断重度抑郁症(MDD)。在过去50年里,已经开发了许多MDD测量方法(以及抑郁症状量表),但它们在CSD人群中的比较效用仍不清楚。
系统比较抑郁症筛查问卷在大量CSD患者中检测MDD的性能。
研究设计/设置:前瞻性队列研究,在CSD人群中使用受试者工作特征(ROC)分析,比较四种常用抑郁症测量方法相对于“金标准”DSM-IV轴I障碍结构化临床访谈(SCID-I)诊断MDD的筛查能力。
连续入选546例入住跨学科功能恢复项目的CSD患者。
敏感性、特异性、ROC曲线、曲线下面积(AUC)以及与MDD患病率最密切相关的最佳截断点,并进行敏感性和特异性平衡分析。
以SCID-I诊断为“金标准”,比较四种筛查方法检测MDD的能力。这些方法包括:贝克抑郁量表(BDI);汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HRSD);9项患者健康问卷抑郁模块(PHQ-9);以及简短健康调查36项量表(SF-36)。
在542例CSD患者中,331例(61.1%)被SCID-I诊断为MDD。ROC分析结果显示,BDI(AUC 0.768)、HRSD(AUC 0.796)和PHQ-9(AUC 0.768)在区分该人群中抑郁和非抑郁患者方面具有相似的能力。这些抑郁测量方法优于从SF-36得出的两个心理健康量表(心理成分汇总得分/5项心理健康指数;AUC 0.679 - 0.715)。还确定了BDI的最佳截断分数为15、HRSD为17、PHQ-9为10。尽管HRSD获得了最高的总体准确率(敏感性为81.3%,特异性为65.4%),但它是唯一由临床医生实施的工具。抑郁的自我报告测量方法(BDI和PHQ-9)在检测抑郁方面显示出相当的能力,仅略低于HRSD。
与HRSD相比,BDI和PHQ-9都相对较短且易于自我实施。本研究中确定的截断分数可用于可靠地确定是否应对某人进行更全面的MDD诊断评估。使用公认的“金标准”HRSD,BDI和PHQ-9显示出相似的有效性,推荐它们用于未来的临床和研究目的。SF-36不太适合诊断MDD。