Johnson G, Burvill P W, Anderson C S, Jamrozik K, Stewart-Wynne E G, Chakera T M
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Science, University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1995 Apr;91(4):252-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1995.tb09778.x.
Evaluation of the relative efficacy of three screening instruments for depression and anxiety in a group of stroke patients was undertaken as part of the Perth community stroke study. Data are presented on the sensitivity and specificity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAPS), the Geriatric Depression Scale and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) (28-item version) in screening patients 4 months after stroke for depressive and anxiety disorders diagnosed according to DSM-III criteria. The GHQ-28 and GDS but not the HADS depression, were shown to be satisfactory screening instruments for depression, with the GHQ-28 having an overall superiority. The performance of all 3 scales for screening post-stroke anxiety disorders was less satisfactory. The HADS anxiety had the best level of sensitivity, but the specificity and positive predictive values were low and the misclassification rate high.
作为珀斯社区中风研究的一部分,对一组中风患者使用三种抑郁症和焦虑症筛查工具的相对疗效进行了评估。本文呈现了医院焦虑抑郁量表(HAPS)、老年抑郁量表和一般健康问卷(GHQ,28项版本)在筛查中风4个月后的患者是否患有根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版标准诊断的抑郁和焦虑症时的敏感性和特异性数据。结果显示,GHQ - 28和老年抑郁量表是筛查抑郁症的满意工具,但HAPS抑郁量表不是,其中GHQ - 28总体上更具优势。所有这三种量表在筛查中风后焦虑症方面的表现都不太令人满意。HAPS焦虑量表的敏感性水平最佳,但特异性和阳性预测值较低,错误分类率较高。