Browsing by Author "National Institute of Science and Technology"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    The Accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Algorithm for Screening to Detect Major Depression: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis
    (2020-01-01) Chen He; Brooke Levis; Kira E. Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Alexander W. Levis; Marleine Azar; Danielle B. Rice; Ankur Krishnan; Yin Wu; Ying Sun; Mahrukh Imran; Jill Boruff; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; John P.A. Ioannidis; Lorie A. Kloda; Dean McMillan; Scott B. Patten; Ian Shrier; Roy C. Ziegelstein; Dickens H. Akena; Bruce Arroll; Liat Ayalon; Hamid R. Baradaran; Murray Baron; Anna Beraldi; Charles H. Bombardier; Peter Butterworth; Gregory Carter; Marcos Hortes Nisihara Chagas; Juliana C.N. Chan; Rushina Cholera; Kerrie Clover; Yeates Conwell; Janneke M. De Man-Van Ginkel; Jesse R. Fann; Felix H. Fischer; Daniel Fung; Bizu Gelaye; Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Catherine G. Greeno; Brian J. Hall; Patricia A. Harrison; Martin Härter; Ulrich Hegerl; Leanne Hides; Stevan E. Hobfoll; Marie Hudson; Thomas N. Hyphantis; Masatoshi Inagaki; Khalida Ismail; Nathalie Jetté; Mohammad E. Khamseh; Kim M. Kiely; Yunxin Kwan; Femke Lamers; Shen Ing Liu; Manote Lotrakul; Sonia R. Loureiro; Bernd Löwe; Laura Marsh; Anthony McGuire; Sherina Mohd-Sidik; Tiago N. Munhoz; Kumiko Muramatsu; Flávia L. Osório; Vikram Patel; Brian W. Pence; Philippe Persoons; Angelo Picardi; Katrin Reuter; Alasdair G. Rooney; Iná S. Da Silva Dos Santos; Juwita Shaaban; Abbey Sidebottom; Adam Simning; Lesley Stafford; Sharon Sung; Pei Lin Lynnette Tan; Alyna Turner; Henk C.P.M. Van Weert; Jennifer White; Mary A. Whooley; Kirsty Winkley; Mitsuhiko Yamada; Brett D. Thombs; Andrea Benedetti; Melbourne Institute; Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences; San Francisco VA Health Care System; Mackay Medical College; Calvary Mater Newcastle; Duke-NUS Medical School Singapore; City of Minneapolis; Hunter Medical Research Institute, Australia; Niigata Seiryo University; Bar-Ilan University School of Social Work; Makerere University; Concordia University; University Medical Center Utrecht; Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; KU Leuven– University Hospital Leuven; University of Queensland; Mackay Memorial Hospital Taiwan; University of New South Wales (UNSW) Australia; University of Edinburgh; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine; Shimane University; Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Universiti Putra Malaysia; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; KU Leuven; Iran University of Medical Sciences; Prince of Wales Hospital Hong Kong; University of Rochester Medical Center; University of California, San Francisco; Neuroscience Research Australia; Universidade de Macau; Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research; UNC School of Medicine; Technical University of Munich; Monash University; Deakin University; National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Kodaira; University of Newcastle, Faculty of Health and Medicine; University of York; Saint Joseph's College of Maine; Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University; University of Aberdeen; University of Pittsburgh; University of Washington, Seattle; Universidade Federal de Pelotas; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Stanford University; King's College London; Istituto Superiore Di Sanita; Singapore Institute of Mental Health; Australian National University; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main; Centre universitaire de santé McGill; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; University of Auckland; Nanyang Technological University; Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf und Medizinische Fakultät; Panepistimion Ioanninon; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Harvard Medical School; School of Medical Sciences - Universiti Sains Malaysia; McGill University; Tan Tock Seng Hospital; Baylor College of Medicine; University of Calgary; Amsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdam; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Private Practice for Psychotherapy and Psycho-oncology; STAR-Stress; National Institute of Science and Technology; Allina Health
    © 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel. All rights reserved. Background: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. Objective: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. Methods: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. Results: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22-0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06-0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (0.82-0.88). Conclusions: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Equivalency of the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
    (2020-06-01) Yin Wu; Yin Wu; Yin Wu; Brooke Levis; Kira E. Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Alexander W. Levis; Marleine Azar; Danielle B. Rice; Danielle B. Rice; Jill Boruff; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; John P.A. Ioannidis; Lorie A. Kloda; Dean McMillan; Scott B. Patten; Scott B. Patten; Ian Shrier; Ian Shrier; Roy C. Ziegelstein; Dickens H. Akena; Bruce Arroll; Liat Ayalon; Hamid R. Baradaran; Hamid R. Baradaran; Murray Baron; Murray Baron; Charles H. Bombardier; Peter Butterworth; Peter Butterworth; Gregory Carter; Marcos H. Chagas; Juliana C.N. Chan; Juliana C.N. Chan; Juliana C.N. Chan; Rushina Cholera; Yeates Conwell; Janneke M. De Man-Van Ginkel; Jesse R. Fann; Felix H. Fischer; Daniel Fung; Daniel Fung; Daniel Fung; Daniel Fung; Bizu Gelaye; Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Catherine G. Greeno; Brian J. Hall; Brian J. Hall; Patricia A. Harrison; Martin Härter; Ulrich Hegerl; Leanne Hides; Stevan E. Hobfoll; Marie Hudson; Marie Hudson; Thomas Hyphantis; Masatoshi Inagaki; Nathalie Jetté; Nathalie Jetté; Nathalie Jetté; Mohammad E. Khamseh; Kim M. Kiely; Kim M. Kiely; Yunxin Kwan; Femke Lamers; Shen Ing Liu; Shen Ing Liu; Shen Ing Liu; Shen Ing Liu; Manote Lotrakul; Sonia R. Loureiro; Bernd Löwe; Anthony McGuire; Sherina Mohd-Sidik; Tiago N. Munhoz; Kumiko Muramatsu; Flávia L. Osório; Flávia L. Osório; Vikram Patel; Vikram Patel; Brian W. Pence; Philippe Persoons; Philippe Persoons; Angelo Picardi; Katrin Reuter; Alasdair G. Rooney; Iná S. Santos; Juwita Shaaban; Abbey Sidebottom; Adam Simning; Lesley Stafford; Lesley Stafford; Sharon Sung; Sharon Sung; Pei Lin Lynnette Tan; Alyna Turner; Alyna Turner; Melbourne Institute; Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences; Mackay Medical College; Duke-NUS Medical School Singapore; City of Minneapolis; Hunter Medical Research Institute, Australia; Niigata Seiryo University; Makerere University; Concordia University; University Medical Center Utrecht; Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; KU Leuven– University Hospital Leuven; The University of Queensland; Mackay Memorial Hospital Taiwan; University of New South Wales (UNSW) Australia; The University of Edinburgh; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine; Shimane University; Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Universiti Putra Malaysia; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; KU Leuven; Iran University of Medical Sciences; Universitäts Klinikum Freiburg und Medizinische Fakultät; Prince of Wales Hospital Hong Kong; University of Rochester Medical Center; Neuroscience Research Australia; Universidade de Macau; Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research; UNC School of Medicine; Deakin University; University of Newcastle, Faculty of Health and Medicine; University of York; Saint Joseph's College of Maine; Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University; University of Pittsburgh; University of Washington, Seattle; Universidade Federal de Pelotas; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Stanford University; University of Aberdeen School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition; Istituto Superiore Di Sanita; Singapore Institute of Mental Health; The Australian National University; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Universidade de Sao Paulo - USP; Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main; University of Auckland; Nanyang Technological University; Johns Hopkins University; Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf und Medizinische Fakultät; Panepistimion Ioanninon; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Bar-Ilan University; Harvard Medical School; School of Medical Sciences - Universiti Sains Malaysia; McGill University; Tan Tock Seng Hospital; University of Calgary; STAR-Stress; National Institute of Science and Technology; Allina Health
    Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019. Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.Methods We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.Results 16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (-0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).Conclusions PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Probability of major depression diagnostic classification using semi-structured versus fully structured diagnostic interviews
    (2018-06-01) Brooke Levis; Andrea Benedetti; Kira E. Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Alexander W. Levis; Marleine Azar; Danielle B. Rice; Matthew J. Chiovitti; Tatiana A. Sanchez; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; John P.A. Ioannidis; Lorie A. Kloda; Dean McMillan; Scott B. Patten; Ian Shrier; Russell J. Steele; Roy C. Ziegelstein; Dickens H. Akena; Bruce Arroll; Liat Ayalon; Hamid R. Baradaran; Murray Baron; Anna Beraldi; Charles H. Bombardier; Peter Butterworth; Gregory Carter; Marcos H. Chagas; Juliana C.N. Chan; Rushina Cholera; Neerja Chowdhary; Kerrie Clover; Yeates Conwell; Janneke M. De Man-Van Ginkel; Jaime Delgadillo; Jesse R. Fann; Felix H. Fischer; Benjamin Fischler; Daniel Fung; Bizu Gelaye; Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Catherine G. Greeno; Brian J. Hall; John Hambridge; Patricia A. Harrison; Ulrich Hegerl; Leanne Hides; Stevan E. Hobfoll; Marie Hudson; Thomas Hyphantis; Masatoshi Inagaki; Khalida Ismail; Nathalie Jetté; Mohammad E. Khamseh; Kim M. Kiely; Femke Lamers; Shen Ing Liu; Manote Lotrakul; Sonia R. Loureiro; Bernd Löwe; Laura Marsh; Anthony McGuire; Sherina Mohd Sidik; Tiago N. Munhoz; Kumiko Muramatsu; Flávia L. Osório; Vikram Patel; Brian W. Pence; Philippe Persoons; Angelo Picardi; Alasdair G. Rooney; Iná S. Santos; Juwita Shaaban; Abbey Sidebottom; Adam Simning; Lesley Stafford; Sharon Sung; Pei Lin Lynnette Tan; Alyna Turner; Christina M. Van Der Feltz-Cornelis; Henk C. Van Weert; Paul A. Vöhringer; Jennifer White; Mary A. Whooley; Kirsty Winkley; Mitsuhiko Yamada; Yuying Zhang; Brett D. Thombs; Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health; Amsterdam Public Health; San Francisco VA Health Care System; Mackay Medical College; Calvary Mater Newcastle; Duke-NUS Medical School Singapore; City of Minneapolis; Niigata Seiryo University; Bar-Ilan University School of Social Work; Makerere University; Concordia University; University Medical Center Utrecht; Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton; Harvard School of Public Health; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; KU Leuven– University Hospital Leuven; University of Queensland; Mackay Memorial Hospital Taiwan; University of Edinburgh; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine; University of Melbourne; Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Universiti Putra Malaysia; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; KU Leuven; Iran University of Medical Sciences; Prince of Wales Hospital Hong Kong; University of Rochester Medical Center; University of California, San Francisco; Tufts University; Universidade de Macau; Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research; Okayama University Medical School; Technical University of Munich; Monash University; Deakin University; Rush University Medical Center; National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry Kodaira; University of Newcastle, Faculty of Health and Medicine; University of York; Saint Joseph's College of Maine; Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University; University of Pittsburgh; University of Washington, Seattle; Universidade Federal de Pelotas; John Hunter Hospital; Stanford University; Universidad de Chile; King's College London; University of Newcastle, Australia; Istituto Superiore Di Sanita; Singapore Institute of Mental Health; Australian National University; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Universidade de Sao Paulo - USP; Centre universitaire de santé McGill; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; University of Auckland; Nanyang Technological University; Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf und Medizinische Fakultät; Panepistimion Ioanninon; Universitätsklinikum Leipzig und Medizinische Fakultät; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Harvard Medical School; School of Medical Sciences - Universiti Sains Malaysia; McGill University; Tan Tock Seng Hospital; Baylor College of Medicine; University of Calgary; TRANZO Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing; University of Sheffield; Amsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdam; The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Clinical Psychiatrist; National Institute of Science and Technology; Clinical Centre of Excellence for Body; Allina Health; Public Health Foundation of India; Ministry of Economy; Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek
    Copyright © 2018 The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Background: Different diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification. Aims: To evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics. Method: Data collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit. Results: A total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15-3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98-10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7-15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56-1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26-0.97). Conclusions: The MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.