Research

Case identification of depression in patients with chronic physical health problems: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 113 studies

Nicholas Meader, Alex J Mitchell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, David Goldberg, Maria Rizzo, Victoria Bird, David Kessler, Jon Packham, Mark Haddad and Stephen Pilling
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (593): e808-e820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X613151

Abstract

Background Depression is more likely in patients with chronic physical illness, and is associated with increased rates of disability and mortality. Effective treatment of depression may reduce morbidity and mortality. The use of two stem questions for case finding in diabetes and coronary heart disease is advocated in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, and has become normalised into primary care.

Aim To define the most effective tool for use in consultations to detect depression in people with chronic physical illness.

Design Meta-analysis.

Method The following data sources were searched: CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, from inception to July 2009. Three authors selected studies that examined identification tools and used an interview-based ICD (International Classification of Diseases) or DSM (Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) diagnosis of depression as reference standard. At least two authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed methodological quality.

Results A total of 113 studies met the eligibility criteria, providing data on 20 826 participants. It was found that two stem questions, PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), the Zung, and GHQ-28 (General Health Questionnaire) were the optimal measures for case identification, but no method was sufficiently accurate to recommend as a definitive case-finding tool. Limitations were the moderate-to-high heterogeneity for most scales and the facts that few studies used ICD diagnoses as the reference standard, and that a variety of methods were used to determine DSM diagnoses.

Conclusion Assessing both validity and ease of use, the two stem questions are the preferred method. However, clinicians should not rely on the two-questions approach alone, but should be confident to engage in a more detailed clinical assessment of patients who score positively.

INTRODUCTION

Depression is one of the leading causes of disability and disease burden.1 It is associated with the most years lost to disability of all diseases worldwide. Identifying depression in patients with chronic physical health problems is important for several reasons. First, a number of studies suggest depression is approximately two to three times as prevalent in such populations, including patients with cancer,2 chronic heart disease,3,4 and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).5 Secondly, there appears to be greater disease burden, in terms of healthcare use and functional disability, in people with comorbid depression compared with those with physical health problems alone.6,7 Thirdly, mortality is greater in several medical conditions when depression is present — heart disease,8 COPD,9 stroke,10 cancer11 — and in medically ill older adults.12 Furthermore, morbidity and mortality may diminish with effective treatment of depression.13,14

There is convincing evidence that many cases of depression go unrecognised in the general population and in primary care.15–17 Reasons for under-recognition include a low rate of mood problems as the presenting complaint, infrequent specific enquiry from clinicians, and uncertainty about diagnostic criteria.18,19 Identifying depression in people with chronic physical health problems may be even more complex, and primary care physicians may be less likely to diagnose depression in this population.20,21 Reasons for difficulties in raising the issue of depression in consultations are complex.22 In addition, depressed individuals presenting with somatic complaints are less likely to be detected.23–26

Improving case identification for depression has received much attention. For example, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for depression for all people in primary care (whether they had a physical illness or not), along with the necessary treatment resources for those subsequently identified.27 In the UK, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), GPs are incentivised to ask the case-identification questions of people with diabetes and coronary heart disease.28 This approach is also advocated in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines.29 However, there is much debate in the literature concerning the effectiveness of screening and case identification.30 Gilbody and colleagues have shown untargeted screening was not effective in improving the recognition of depression in primary care and general hospital settings.30 There is also much debate concerning the terminology used in the field. The present study proposes to separate overall accuracy (case identification) into more clinically understandable rule-in and rule-out performance. Rule-in accuracy (positive predictive value) is the ability to correctly identify those with the disorder with minimal false positives, whereas rule-out accuracy (negative predictive value) is the ability to correctly identify those without the disorder with minimal false negatives (missed cases). In order to differentiate from untargeted screening approaches, which appear to be ineffective, this data synthesis will focus on case identification in a population at higher risk of depression (that is, people with chronic physical health problems). This is vital before further case finding is advocated by the QOF for patients with other physical problems.

How this fits in

There is strong evidence that the prevalence of depression is raised among patients with long-term conditions and that this comorbidity is associated with adverse outcomes. Inadequate and inaccurate identification of depression has been documented in both primary care and general medical settings. This meta-analysis provides evidence that several brief and feasible depression case-finding approaches can be used as a first assessment for patients with chronic physical health problems, and that two stem questions referring to core depression features appear the most efficient initial approach.

There are a large number of scales used both in clinical practice and in research studies, few of which have been originally developed for the physically ill. In addition, there are no existing definitive meta-analyses across a comprehensive range of measures. Therefore, a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the most widely used case-identification instruments in people who are physically ill.

METHOD

Data sources and searches

The full review protocol can be found in the guideline on depression in people with chronic physical health problems, which was commissioned by NICE.31 Briefly, a search for studies assessing the validity of case-identification instruments was made using seven electronic bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge). Each database was searched from inception to October 2009. Additional papers were found by searching the references of retrieved articles, tables of contents of relevant journals, previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case identification for depression, written requests to experts, and suggestions made by the members of the Guideline Development Group (comprising clinicians, academics, and service users with expertise in depression and chronic physical health problems).

Study selection

The study included validation studies of mood questionnaires agreed by the authors (see Appendix 1 for further details). The reference standard was diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (for example DSM-IV)32 or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (for example ICD-10)33 of the World Health Organization criteria. Studies that did not clearly state the comparator to be DSM or ICD diagnosis of depression, or that did not provide sufficient data to be extracted in the meta-analysis were excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

All published studies that met the eligibility criteria were assessed for methodological quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist for diagnostic studies.29 Data were extracted independently by at least two authors, and 2×2 tables were constructed, from which the primary outcomes were calculated: that is sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.

To maximise the available data, the most consistently reported and recommended cut-off points were extracted for each of the scales. There are limitations to this approach, as noted by Furukawa and colleagues,34 ;who found that the optimal cut-offs for the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 and GHQ-28 differed according to the prevalence of depression, and it is likely there are similar problems for most other scales. However, a Bayesian approach makes allowance for variations according to prevalence (see below), therefore seeking to take into account this potential limitation.

Data synthesis and analysis

A bivariate diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted using Stata (version 10) with the metandi35 commands, to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. This method was originally developed as a mixed effects regression model for meta-analysis of trials, and modified more recently for studies of diagnostic accuracy.36,37 Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.38 In addition, publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots, and formal use of Egger's test.39

A Bayesian curve analysis was also undertaken; this plots post-test conditional probabilities from all possible pre-test probabilities (prevalence). The area under the Bayesian curve (AUC) for positive results can be used as a statistical comparison of rule-in success and 1 — AUC for negatives results used as an indicator of rule-out success. An area of more than 0.75 can be interpreted as ‘satisfactory’ and more than 0.80 interpreted as ‘good’. If a test achieved more than 0.90 in a rule-in capacity, this was considered sufficient for a recommendation that this tool could be used on its own for case finding.

Additional meta-regression analyses were planned to assess differences in diagnostic accuracy for disease groups. Such analyses were conducted on a scale when there were a minimum of four studies for at least two disease groups.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies on 20 826 participants met the eligibility criteria of the review (see Figure 1 for full details on study flow information). These studies were both on populations specifically targeted for a chronic physical health problem (such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke), and in general medical settings where all were physically ill and a substantial proportion had a chronic physical health problem. In total, 83 studies specifically targeted people with chronic physical health problems in any setting (Appendix 2). The mean prevalence of depression was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05 to 0.61). A further 30 studies were on people in general medical settings, with a mean prevalence of depression of 0.24 (95% CI = 0.04 to 0.52).

Figure 1
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Studies recruiting for chronic physical health problem

Sensitivity and specificity

Table 1 provides an evidence summary for the various scales on people recruited for specific chronic physical health problems. There was moderate to high sensitivity for most scales. The tools with the highest sensitivity were the two stem questions (0.98; 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.99), followed by the GHQ-28, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and BDI non-somatic (Table 1). Sensitivity was lowest for the one-item measure.

View this table:
Table 1

Evidence summary of scales in studies recruiting for chronic physical illness

The Zung Self Rating Depression Scale had the highest specificity 0.92 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.98). This was followed by the two stem questions, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), PHQ-9 and the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D); all had high specificity. The lowest specificity was found for the one-item measure and the GHQ-12.

Rule-in (positive predictive value) and rule-out accuracy (negative predictive value)

Using Bayesian plots of conditional probabilities to examine rule-in and rule-out performance, only three tools had less than satisfactory rule-in performance, namely the single question: the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and GHQ-12. The optimal single tool was the Zung, although it did not reach the a priori standard for recommendation when applied alone. For rule-out performance, four methods were not satisfactory. These were the single queston, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), GDS-30, and GHQ-12. The optimal tools were the two stem questions and GHQ-28. Overall accuracy was best for the two stem questions, Zung, PHQ-9, and GHQ-28. However, it should be noted that data for the Zung scale were based on just four studies and a relatively small total sample size (n = 190).

Meta-regression comparing the diagnostic accuracy for different disease groups was only possible for the BDI and HADS-D. There was no evidence of difference in sensitivity (beta = 0.93, P = 0.34) and specificity (beta = 1.56, P = 0.35) of the HADS between stroke and cancer patients. There was no evidence of difference in sensitivity (beta = 1.49, P = 0.60), but some evidence for differences in specificity (beta = 1.20, P = 0.02) of the BDI between heart disease and cancer patients.

Studies in general medical settings

Table 2 summarises the results for general medical settings. There were only three scales that provided sufficient data for analyses. All these scales performed equally well in this setting as compared to populations specifically targeted for chronic physical health problems with a large overlap in confidence intervals.

View this table:
Table 2

Evidence summary of scales in general medical settings

Sensitivity and specificity

Sensitivity was relatively high in all measures but particularly high in the GDS-15 (0.89; 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.92). Specificity was very similar for the GDS-30, GDS-15, and HADS when used in general medical settings (Table 2).

Rule-in and rule-out accuracy

Using the same methodology for each measure in general medical settings and correcting for prevalence using a Bayesian analysis, the GDS-15 was most successful and the HADS least successful. No method came close to the a priori; standard for rule-in performance when applied alone. For rule-out accuracy, the HADS was significantly less accurate than the GDS-15 (Area HADS = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.74 versus Area GDS-15 = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.82).

DISCUSSION

Most of the scales performed adequately as case-identification measures for depression, with modest differences in validity coefficients. Most studies targeted chronic physically ill populations rather than general medical settings such as primary care. In order to detect depression in those with chronic physically ill health, the most sensitive instruments appear to be two stem questions, PHQ-9, and GHQ-28. The most specific measure was the Zung. Overall, optimal accuracy was achieved by the two stem questions, Zung, PHQ-9, and GHQ-28. However, it should be noted that estimates on the Zung and GHQ-28 analysis were based on a relatively small sample size; therefore, it is possible that conclusions regarding these scales may change with further data. No method came close to the a priori standard for case-finding recommendation when applied alone.

Another important factor to consider when comparing the different measures is the ease of implementation. The Zung is a 20-item scale and therefore is more resource intensive and less likely to be implemented in primary care compared to shorter measures. Taking into account both the psychometric properties and ease of implementation, it would appear the two stem questions may be the preferred measure for case identification in patients with chronic physical health problems. From these data, the authors do not recommend relying upon a single question alone, and recommend two questions as a minimum initial enquiry. This is consistent with previous pooled data in primary care40 and cancer settings.41

In general medical settings, there were fewer studies, and analysable data were only available for the GDS, GDS-15, and HADS-D. Specificity was similar for all three scales but sensitivity was highest in the GDS-15. Further research is needed to confirm whether the optimal tools in the chronically ill (two stem questions, PHQ-9, and the Zung) perform equally well in general medical samples.

There are several limitations to the results of this systematic review. First, there was moderate to high heterogeneity for most measures. Secondly, there is a paucity of validity studies using the ICD-10 as the criterion standard compared with the DSM-IV, which may favour tools using DSM items, and therefore the authors recommend future examination using this outcome. Thirdly, there were widely used or potentially useful scales that had few or no studies in the physically ill; these include the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS),42 and the Clinically Useful Outcome Depression Scale (CUDOS).43 Further research is needed on these scales for people with chronic physical health problems. Fourthly, there were a number of different semi-structured methods used to determine the interview-based diagnosis, including the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN),44 the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI),45 the Structured and Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID),46 and the Diagnostic Interview schedule (DIS),47 all of which may vary in diagnostic accuracy. A further limitation is the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses assessing the cost impact of false positives associated with the use of case-identification measures. However, it should be noted that the cost-effectiveness of case identification is very complex to model and requires a number of assumptions concerning probabilities assigned to events in the depression treatment care pathway, and explicit values of treatment outcomes.48 Therefore, such issues were considered beyond the scope of this paper.

It should also be acknowledged that the use of case-identification tools may not be translated into real benefit in clinical practice. Case identification may bring limited benefit if there are no effective assessment and treatment services in place, as professionals may be reluctant to make a diagnosis of depression if they have limited resources on which to call.49 The aim of the NICE guideline for which this review was conducted,31 is to promote the commissioning of such services. The impact of case finding on the individual consultation may be important, since the use of the PHQ-9 severity questionnaire can cause a tension within the consultation, with GPs struggling to manage formal assessment versus personal enquiry.50

From this data synthesis, it appears that there are a number of instruments for the case identification of depression in the medically ill that have similar accuracy. A consideration of both accuracy and acceptability suggests that the two stem questions may be the most efficient initial method, although further validation is needed. We do not recommend the use of a single question used alone. GPs and practice nurses should not rely on the case-finding questions alone; they should be confident to complete an assessment of the patient's mental state and risk, and a pathway within the practice should be in place (particularly when it is the practice nurse who has done the case finding). Resources within the practice should be available to support patients who have depression and a chronic physical health problem, and primary care practitioners should have well-defined links with local primary care mental health services, which should offer appropriate interventions for such patients, including a collaborative care approach as recommended by NICE.31

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the NICE guideline development groups on Depression and Chronic Physical Health Problems and Depression in Adults for their input during the development of this systematic review.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Full list of instruments considered

  1. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI):

    • BDI-II51

    • BDI Cognitive-Affective scale51

    • BDI Fast Screen52

  2. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ):

    • PHQ-953

    • PHQ-254

  3. Two stem questions:55

    • These are similar to the PHQ-2 except that the scoring system is dichotomous (‘yes’ or ‘no’) rather than the Likert scale used for both PHQ-9 and PHQ-2, and the period of reported low mood or loss of interest is 1 month rather than 2 weeks

  4. General Health Questionnaire:56

    • GHQ-12

    • GHQ-28

  5. Centre of Epidemiological Studies - Depression (CES-D)57

  6. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)

  7. Zung Self Rating Depression Scale60

  8. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression61

  9. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale HDRS62

    • Both 17– and 21-item versions

  10. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)63

  11. Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale64

  12. One-item measures of depression

  13. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale178

Appendix

View this table:
Appendix 2

Summary characteristics of included studies

Notes

Funding

Stephen Pilling received financial support from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Additional information

The Bayesian plots of conditional probabilities of scale are available on request fromthe authors.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

David Goldberg developed the General Health Questionnaire. The other authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received November 19, 2010.
  • Revision received January 13, 2011.
  • Accepted March 21, 2011.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    (2004) Global burden of disease (World Health Organization, Geneva).
  2. ↵
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Chan M,
    3. Bhatti H,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies. Lancet Oncol 12(2):160–174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Herbst S,
    2. Pietrzak RH,
    3. Wagner J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Lifetime major depression is associated with coronary heart disease in older adults: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychosom Med 69(8):729–734.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Wilhelm K,
    2. Mitchell P,
    3. Slade T,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Prevalence and correlates of DSM-IV major depression in an Australian national survey. J Affect Disord 75(2):155–162.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Wagena EJ,
    2. Arrindell WA,
    3. Wouters EFM,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Are patients with COPD psychologically distressed? Eur Respir J 26(2):242–248.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Stein MB,
    2. Cox BJ,
    3. Afifi TO,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Does comorbid depressive illness magnify the impact of chronic physical illness? A population-based perspective. Psychol Med 36(5):587–596.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Unutzer J,
    2. Schoenbaum M,
    3. Katon WJ,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Healthcare costs associated with depression in medically ill fee-for-service medicare participants. J Am Geriatr Soc 57(3):506–510.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Penninx BW,
    2. Beekman AT,
    3. Honiq A,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Depression and cardiac mortality: results from a community-based longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58(3):221–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. De Voogd JN,
    2. Wempe JB,
    3. Koeter GH,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Depressive symptoms as predictors of mortality in patients with COPD. Chest 135(3):619–625.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. House A,
    2. Knapp P,
    3. Bamford J,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Mortality at 12 and 24 months after stroke may be associated with depressive symptoms at 1 month. Stroke 32(3):696–701.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Satin JR,
    2. Wolfgang Linden W,
    3. Phillips MJ
    (2009) Depression as a predictor of disease progression and mortality in cancer patients. A meta-analysis. Cancer 115(22):5349–5361.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Covinsky KE,
    2. Kahana E,
    3. Chin MH,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Depressive symptoms and 3-year mortality in older hospitalized medical patients. Ann Intern Med 130(7):563–569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Gallo JJ,
    2. Bogner HR,
    3. Morales KH,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The effect of a primary care practice-based depression intervention on mortality in older adults. Ann Intern Med 146(10):689–698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Glassman AH,
    2. O'Connor CM,
    3. Califf RM,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Sertraline treatment of major depression in patients with MI or unstable angina. JAMA 288(6):701–709.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Del Piccolo L,
    2. Saltini A,
    3. Zimmermann C
    (1998) Which patients talk about stressful life events and social problems to the general practitioner? Psychol Med 28(6):1289–1299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Vaze A,
    3. Rao S
    (2009) Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Lancet 374(9690):609–611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Williams JW Jr.,
    2. Kerber CA,
    3. Mulrow CD,
    4. et al.
    (1995) Depressive disorders in primary care: Prevalence, functional disability, and identification. J Gen Intern Med 10(1):7–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Hickie IB,
    2. Davenport TA,
    3. Scott EM,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Unmet need for recognition of common mental disorders in Australian general practice. Med J Aust 175(Suppl):S18–S24.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Verhaak PFM,
    2. Schellevis FG,
    3. Nuijen J,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Patients with a psychiatric disorder in general practice: determinants of general practitioners' psychological diagnosis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 28(2):125–132.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Bridges KW,
    2. Goldberg DP
    (1985) Somatic presentation of DSM III psychiatric disorders in primary care. J Psychosom Res 29(6):563–569.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Rost K,
    2. Nutting P,
    3. Smith J,
    4. et al.
    (2000) The role of competing demands in the treatment provided primary care patients with major depression. Arch Fam Med 9(2):150–154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Coventry P,
    2. Hays R,
    3. Dickens C,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 12:10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Aragones E,
    2. Pinol JL,
    3. Labad A,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Detection and management of depressive disorders in primary care in Spain. Int J Psychiatry Med 34(4):331–343.
    OpenUrl
    1. Nuyen J,
    2. Volkers AC,
    3. Verhaak PFM,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Accuracy of diagnosing depression in primary care: the impact of chronic somatic and psychiatric co-morbidity. Psychol Med 35(8):1185–1195.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pfaff JJ,
    2. Almeida OP
    (2005) A cross-sectional analysis of factors that influence the detection of depression in older primary care patients. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 39(4):262–265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Menchetti M,
    2. Belvederi M,
    3. Murri B,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Recognition and treatment of depression in primary care. Effect of patients' presentation and frequency of consultation. J Psychosom Res 66(4):335–341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. O'Connor EA,
    2. Whitlock EP,
    3. Beil TL,
    4. Gaynes BN
    (2009) Screening for depression in adult patients in primary care settings: a systematic evidence review. Ann Intern Med 151(11):793–803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2004) Quality and Outcomes Framework (Department of Health, London).
  29. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
    (2008) The guidelines manual. (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London).
  30. ↵
    1. Gilbody S,
    2. Sheldon T,
    3. House A
    (2008) Screening and case-finding instruments for depression: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 178(8):997–1003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
    (2009) Depression in people with a chronic physical health problem (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London).
  32. ↵
    1. American Psychiatric Association
    (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV). (American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC).
  33. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    (1993) The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. (World Health Organization, Geneva).
  34. ↵
    1. Furukawa TA,
    2. Goldberg DP,
    3. Rabe-Hesketh S,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Stratum-specific likelihood ratios of two versions of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med 31(3):519–529.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Harbord R,
    2. Deeks JJ,
    3. Egger M,
    4. et al.
    (2007) A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 8(2):239–251.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. van Houwelingen HC,
    2. Arends LR,
    3. Stijnen T
    (2002) Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 21(4):589–624.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Reitsma JB,
    2. Glas AS,
    3. Rutjes AWS,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58(10):982–990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Higgins JPT,
    2. Thompson SG,
    3. Deeks JJ,
    4. Altman DG
    (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Egger M,
    2. Davey Smith G,
    3. Schneider M,
    4. Minder C
    (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Coyne JC
    (2007) Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies. Br J Gen Pract 57(535):144–151.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Mitchell A
    (2008) Are one or two simple questions sufficient to detect depression in cancer and palliative care? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 98(12):1934–1943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Montgomery SA,
    2. Asberg M
    (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 134:382–389.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Zimmerman M,
    2. Chelminski I,
    3. McGlinchey JB,
    4. et al.
    (2008) A clinically useful depression outcome scale. Compr Psychiatry 49(2):131–140.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    (1994) Schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (World Health Organization, Geneva).
  45. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    (1990) Composite international diagnostic interview (World Health Organization, Geneva).
  46. ↵
    1. Spitzer R L,
    2. Williams JB,
    3. Gibbon M,
    4. First MB
    (1992) The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). I: History, rationale, and description. Arch Gen Psychiatry 49(8):624–629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Robins LN,
    2. Helzer JE,
    3. Croughan J
    (1981) National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: its history, characteristics and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38(4):381–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Valenstein M,
    2. Vijan S,
    3. Zeber JE,
    4. et al.
    (2001) The cost utility of screening for depression in primary care. Ann Intern Med 134(5):345–360.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Burroughs K,
    2. Lovell K,
    3. Morley M,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Justifiable depression: how primary care professional and patients view late-life depression? A qualitative study. Fam Pract 23(3):369–377.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Leydon G,
    2. Dowrick C,
    3. McBride A,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Questionnaire severity measures for depression: a threat to the doctor-patient relationship? Br J Gen Pract 61(583):101–107.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Beck AT,
    2. Steer RA,
    3. Brown GK
    (1996) Beck Depression Inventory (The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio) manual, 2nd edn.
  52. ↵
    1. Beck AT,
    2. Guth D,
    3. Steer RA,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Screening for major depression disorders in medical inpatients with the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care. Behav Res Ther 35(8):785–791.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Spitzer RL,
    2. Kroenke K,
    3. Williams JB,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Validation and utility of a self-report version of the PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA 282(18):1737–1744.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Spitzer RL,
    3. Williams JBW
    (2003) The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item screener. Med Care 41(11):1284–1292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Whooley MA,
    2. Avins AL,
    3. Miranda J,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Case-finding instruments for depression. Two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med 12(7):439–445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Goldberg DP,
    2. Williams P
    (1988) A user's guide to the General Health Questionnaire (NFER-Nelson, Windsor).
  57. ↵
    1. Radloff LS
    (1977) The CESD Scale: a self report scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1:385–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. Yesavage JA,
    2. Brink TL,
    3. Rose TL,
    4. et al.
    (1982) Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 17(1):37–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Brink TL
    1. Sheikh JI,
    2. Yesavage JA
    (1986) in Clinical gerontology: a guide to assessment and intervention, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version, ed Brink TL (The Haworth Press, New York).
  60. ↵
    1. Zung WWK
    (1965) A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psyciatry 12:63–70.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Zigmond AS,
    2. Snaith RP
    (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Hamilton M
    (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56–62.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Montgomery SA,
    2. Asberg M
    (1979) A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 134:382–389.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Zimmerman M,
    2. Chelminski I,
    3. McGlinchey JB,
    4. et al.
    (2008) A clinically useful depression outcome scale. Compr Psychiatry 49(2):131–140.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Aben I,
    2. Verhey F,
    3. Lousberg R,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Validity of the Beck Depression Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SCL-90 and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics 43(5):386–393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Agrell B,
    2. Dehlin O
    (1989) Comparison of six depression rating scales in geriatric stroke patients. Stroke 20(9):1190–1194.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Akechi TM,
    2. Okuyama T,
    3. Sugawara Y,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Screening for depression in terminally ill cancer patients in Japan. J Pain Symptom Manage 31(1):5–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Akizuki N,
    2. Akechi T,
    3. Nakanishi T,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Development of a brief screening interview for adjustment disorders and major depression in patients with cancer. Cancer 97(10):2605–2613.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Aydin IO,
    2. Ulusahin A
    (2001) Depression, anxiety comorbidity, and disability in tuberculosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: applicability of GHQ-12. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 23(2):77–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berard RMF,
    2. Boermeester F,
    3. Viljoen G
    (1998) Depressive disorders in an out-patient oncology setting: prevalence, assessment and management. Psychooncology 7(2):112–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berg A,
    2. Lonnqvist J,
    3. Palomaki H,
    4. Kaste M
    (2009) Assessment of depression after stroke: a comparison of different screening instruments. Stroke 40(2):523–529.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Blank K,
    2. Gruman C,
    3. Robison JT
    (2004) Case-finding for depression in elderly people: balancing ease of administration with validity in varied treatment settings. J Gerontol 59(4):378–384.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Burke WJ,
    2. Nitcher RL,
    3. Roccaforte WH,
    4. et al.
    (1992) A prospective evaluation of the Geriatric Depression Scale in an outpatient geriatric assessment center. J Am Geriatr Soc 40(12):1227–1230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chilcot J,
    2. Wellsted D,
    3. Farrington K
    (2008) Screening for depression while patients dialyse: an evaluation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23(8):2653–2659.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chochinov HM,
    2. Wilson KG,
    3. Enns M,
    4. et al.
    (1997) ‘Are you depressed?’ Screening for depression in the terminally ill. Am J Psychiatry 154(5):674–676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Costantini M,
    2. Musso M,
    3. Viterbori P,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Detecting psychological distress in cancer patients: validity of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Support Care Cancer 7(3):121–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Craven J,
    2. Rodin G M,
    3. Littlefield C
    (1988) The Beck Depression Inventory as a screening device for major depression in renal dialysis patients. Int J Psychiatry Med 18(4):365–374.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cullum S,
    2. Tucker S,
    3. Todd C,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Screening for depression in older medical inpatients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 21(5):476.
    OpenUrl
    1. Diez-Quevedo C,
    2. Rangil T,
    3. Sanchez-Planell L,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Validation and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in diagnosing mental disorders in 1003 general hospital Spanish inpatients. Psychosom Med 63(4):679–686.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ertan FS,
    2. Ertan T,
    3. Kiziltan G,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in depression in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76(10):1447.
    OpenUrl
    1. Forkman T,
    2. Vehren T,
    3. Boeker M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of the Beck Depression Inventory: how useful is the conventional cut off? J Psychosom Res 67(4):347–352.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Freedland KE,
    2. Rich MW,
    3. Skala JA,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Prevalence of depression in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure. Psychosom Med 65(1):119–128.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Furlanetto LM,
    2. Mendlowicz MV,
    3. Bueno J
    (2005) The validity of the Beck Depression Inventory-Short Form as a screening and diagnostic instrument for moderate and severe depression in medical inpatients. J Affect Disord 86(1):87–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Galaria I,
    2. Casten R,
    3. Rovner B
    (2000) Development of a shorter version of the Geriatric Depression Scale for visually impaired older patients. Int Psychogeriatr 12(4):435–443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gilley DW,
    2. Wilson RS
    (1997) Criterion-related validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in Alzheimer's disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 19(4):489–499.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Golden J,
    2. Conroy R,
    3. O'Dwyer A
    (2007) Reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory (Full and FastScreen scales) in detecting depression in persons with hepatitis C. J Affect Disord 100(1–3):269.
    OpenUrl
    1. Grassi L,
    2. Sabato S,
    3. Rossi E,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Affective syndromes and their screening in cancer patients with early and stable disease. J Affect Disord 114(1–3):193–199.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hahn D,
    2. Reuter K,
    3. Harter M
    (2006) Screening for affective and anxiety disorders in medical patients: comparison of HADs, GHQ-12 and brief-PHQ. GMS Psychosoc Med 3:Doc09.
    1. Hall A,
    2. Hern RA,
    3. Fallowfield L
    (1999) Are we using appropriate self-report questionnaires for detecting anxiety and depression in women with early breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 35(1):79–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hammer EM,
    2. Häcker S,
    3. Hautzinger M,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Validity of the ALS-Depression-Inventory (ADI-12) — a new screening instrument for depressive disorders in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Affect Disord 109(1–2):213–219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harter M,
    2. Woll S,
    3. Wunsch A,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Screening for mental disorders in cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases. Comparison of HADS and GHQ-12. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 41(1):56–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harter M,
    2. Reuter K,
    3. Gross-Hardt K,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Screening for anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders in rehabilitation: Validity of HADS and GQH-12 in patients with musculoskeletal disease. Disabil Rehabil 23(16):744.
    OpenUrl
    1. Haughey M T,
    2. Calderon Y,
    3. Torres S,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Identification of depression in an inner-city population using a simple screen. Acad Emerg Med 12(12):1221–1226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Haworth J E,
    2. Moniz-Cook E,
    3. Clark AL,
    4. et al.
    (2007) An evaluation of two self-report screening measures for mood in an out-patient chronic heart failure population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 22(11):1147–1153.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Healey AK,
    2. Kneebone II,
    3. Carroll M,
    4. et al.
    (2008) A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of the Brief Assessment Schedule Depression Cards and the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen to screen for depression in older stroke survivors. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 23(5):531–536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hedayati SS,
    2. Bosworth HB,
    3. Kuchibhatla M,
    4. et al.
    (2006) The predictive value of self-report scales compared with physician diagnosis of depression in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 69(9):1662–1668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hermanns N,
    2. Kulzer B,
    3. Krichbaum M,
    4. et al.
    (2006) How to screen for depression and emotional problems in patients with diabetes: comparison of screening characteristics of depression questionnaires, measurement of diabetes-specific emotional problems and standard clinical assessment. Diabetologia 49(3):469–477.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Herrero MJ,
    2. Blanch J,
    3. Peri JM,
    4. et al.
    (2003) A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in a Spanish population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 25(4):277–283.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hickie C,
    2. Snowdon J
    (1987) Depression scales for the elderly. Clin Gerontol 6:51–53.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hopko D,
    2. Bell J,
    3. Armento M
    (2007) Phenomenology and screening of clinical depression in cancer patients. J Psychosoc Oncol 26(1):31–51.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hoyl MT,
    2. Alessi CA,
    3. Harker JO,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Development and testing of a five-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 47(7):873–878.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hughson AVM,
    2. Cooper AF,
    3. McArdle MC,
    4. Smith DC
    (1988) Validity of the General Health Questionnaire and its subscales in patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer. J Psychosom Res 32(4–5):393–402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ibbotson T,
    2. Maguire P,
    3. Selby P,
    4. et al.
    (1994) Screening for anxiety and depression in cancer patients: the effects of disease and treatment. Eur J Cancer 30A(1):37–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jackson R,
    2. Baldwin B
    (1993) Detecting depression in elderly medically ill patients: the use of the Geriatric Depression Scale compared with medical and nursing observations. Age Aging 22(5):349–353.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jefford M,
    2. Mileshkin L,
    3. Richards K,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Rapid screening for depression — validation of the Brief Case-Find for Depression (BCD) in medical oncology and palliative care patients. Br J Cancer 91(5):900–906.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Johnson G,
    2. Burvill PW,
    3. Anderson CS,
    4. et al.
    (1995) Screening instruments for depression and anxiety following stroke. Acta Psychiatr Scand 91(4):252–257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Katz MR,
    2. Kopek N,
    3. Waldron J,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Screening for depression in head and neck cancer. Psychooncology 13(4):269–280.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kawase E,
    2. Karasawa K,
    3. Shimotsu S,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Evaluation of a one-question interview for depression in radiation oncology department in Japan. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 28(4):321–322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Koenig HG,
    2. Meador KG,
    3. Cohen HJ,
    4. et al.
    (1992) Screening for depression in hospitalized elderly medical patients: taking a closer look. J Am Geriatr Soc 40(10):1013–1017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kugaya A,
    2. Akechi T,
    3. Okuyama T,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Screening for psychological distress in Japanese cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 28(5):333–338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lam CK,
    2. Lim PP,
    3. Low BL,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Depression in dementia: a comparative and validation study of four brief scales in the elderly Chinese. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 19(5):422–428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lamers F,
    2. Jonkers CC,
    3. Bosma H,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Summed score of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 was a reliable and valid method for depression screening in chronically ill elderly patients. J Clin Epidemiol 61(7):679–687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Laska AC,
    2. Martensson B,
    3. Kahan T
    (2007) Recognition of depression in aphasic stroke patients. Cerebrovasc Dis 24(1):74–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Le Fevre P,
    2. Devereux J,
    3. Smith S,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Screening for psychiatric illness in the palliative care inpatient setting: a comparison between the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the General Health Questionnaire-12. Palliat Med 13(5):399–407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee AC,
    2. Tang SW,
    3. Yu GK,
    4. Cheung RT
    (2008) The smiley as a simple screening tool for depression after stroke: a preliminary study. Int J Nurs Stud 45(7):1081–1089.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Leentjens AFG,
    2. Verhey FRJ,
    3. Luijckx GJ,
    4. et al.
    (2000) The validity of the Beck Depression Inventory as a screening and diagnostic instrument for depression in patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 15(6):1221–1224.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Leung KK,
    2. Lue BH,
    3. Lee MB,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Screening of depression in patients with chronic medical diseases in a primary care setting. Fam Pract 15(1):67–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lightbody CE,
    2. Baldwin R,
    3. Connolly M,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Can nurses help identify patients with depression following stroke? A pilot study using two methods of detection. J Adv Nurs 57(5):505–512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lincoln NB,
    2. Nicholl CR,
    3. Flannaghan T,
    4. et al.
    (2003) The validity of questionnaire measures for assessing depression after stroke. Clin Rehabil 17(8):840–846.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lloyd-Williams M,
    2. Friedman T,
    3. Rudd N
    (2000) Criterion validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as a screening tool for depression in patients with advanced metastatic cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 20(4):259–265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lloyd-Williams M,
    2. Friedman T,
    3. Rudd N
    (2001) An analysis of the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as a screening tool in patients with advanced metastatic cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 22(6):990–996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lloyd-Williams M,
    2. Dennis M,
    3. Taylor F
    (2004) A prospective study to compare three depression screening tools in patients who are terminally ill. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 26(5):384–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Love AW,
    2. Kisssne DW,
    3. Bloch S,
    4. Clarke D
    (2002) Diagnostic efficiency of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in women with early stage breast cancer. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 36(2):246–250.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Love A,
    2. Grabsch B,
    3. Clarke D,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Screening for depression in women with metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of the Beck Depression Inventory Short Form and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 38(7):526–531.
    OpenUrl
    1. Low GD,
    2. Hubley AM
    (2007) Screening for depression after cardiac events using the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the Geriatric Depression Scale. Soc Indic Res 82:527–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Lowe B,
    2. Spitzer R,
    3. Grafe K,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians' diagnoses. J Affect Disord 78(2):140.
    OpenUrl
    1. Lustman PJ,
    2. Clouse RE,
    3. Griffiths LS,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Screening for depression in diabetes using the Beck Depression Inventory. Psychosom Med 59(1):24–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lykouras L,
    2. Adrachta D,
    3. Kalfakis N,
    4. et al.
    (1996) GHQ-28 as an aid to detect mental disorders in neurological inpatients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 93(3):212–216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Magni G,
    2. Schifano F
    (1986) Assessment of depression in an elderly medical population. J Affect Disord 11(2):121–124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. McManus D,
    2. Pipkin SS,
    3. Whooley MA
    (2005) Screening for depression in patients with coronary heart disease (data from the Heart and Soul Study). Am J Cardiol 96(8):1076–1081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. McQuillan J,
    2. Fifield J,
    3. Sheehan P,
    4. et al.
    (2003) A comparison of self-reports of distress and affective disorder diagnoses in rheumatoid arthritis: a receive operator characteristic analysis. Arthritis Rheum 49(3):368–376.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Meyer HA,
    2. Sinnot C,
    3. Seed PT
    (2003) Depressive symptoms in advanced cancer. Part 1. Assessing depression: The Mood Evaluation Questionnaire. Palliat Med 17(7):596.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Baker-Glenn E,
    3. Thiagarajan S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Diagnostic accuracy and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2 v PHQ9) for major depression in early cancer. Psychooncology 17:S202–S203.
    OpenUrl
    1. Mohr DC,
    2. Hart SL,
    3. Julian L,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Screening for depression among patients with multiple sclerosis: two questions may be enough. Mult Scler 13(2):215–219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Narding P,
    2. Leentjens AFG,
    3. van Kooten F,
    4. Verhey FRJ
    (2002) Disease-specific properties of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression in patients with stroke, Alzheimer's dementia and Parkinson's disease. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 14(3):329–334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Neal RM,
    2. Baldwin RC
    (1994) Screening for anxiety and depression in elderly medical outpatients. Age Ageing 23(6):461–464.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. O'Rourke S,
    2. MacHale S,
    3. Signorini D,
    4. Dennis M
    (1998) Detecting psychiatric morbidity after Stroke: Comparison of the GHQ and the HAD scale. Stroke 29(5):980–985.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Okimoto JT,
    2. Barnes RF,
    3. Veith RC,
    4. et al.
    (1982) Screening for depression in geriatric medical patients. Am J Psychiatry 139(6):799–802.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Olden M,
    2. Rosenfeld B,
    3. Pessin H,
    4. Breitbart W
    (2009) Measuring depression at the end of life: is the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale a valid instrument? Assessment 16(1):43–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ozalp E,
    2. Soygür H,
    3. Cankurtaran E,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Psychiatric morbidity and its screening in Turkish women with breast cancer: a comparison between the HADS and SCID tests. Psychooncology 17(7):668–675.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parikh RM,
    2. Eden DT,
    3. Price TR,
    4. et al.
    (1988) The sensitivity and specificity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in screening for post-stroke depression. Int J Psychiatry Med 18(2):169–181.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parker G,
    2. Hilton T,
    3. Bains J,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Cognitive-based measures screening for depression in the medically ill: The DMI-10 and the DMI-18. Acta Psychiatr Scand 105(6):419–426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Passik SD,
    2. Kirsch KL,
    3. Donaghy KB,
    4. et al.
    (2001) An attempt to employ the Zung Self Rating Depression Scale as a ‘lab test’ to trigger follow up in ambulatory oncology clinics. J Pain Symptom Manage 21(4):273–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Patterson K,
    2. Young C,
    3. Woods S,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Screening for major depression in persons with HIV infection: the concurrent predictive validity of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 15(2):75–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Payne A,
    2. Barry S,
    3. Creedon B,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Sensitivity and specificity of a two question screening tool for depression in a specialist palliative care unit. Palliat Med 21(3):193–198.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Persoons P,
    2. Luyckx K,
    3. Desloovere C,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Anxiety and mood disorders in otorhinolaryngology outpatients presenting with dizziness: validation of the self-administered PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire and epidemiology. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 25(5):316–323.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Picardi A,
    2. Adler DA,
    3. Abeni D,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Screening for depressive disorders in patients with skin diseases: a comparison of three screeners. Acta Derm Venereol 85(5):414–419.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Pomeroy I,
    2. Clark C,
    3. Philp I
    (2001) The effectiveness of very short scales for depression screening in elderly medical patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 16(3):321–326.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Poole N,
    2. Morgan J
    (2006) Validity and reliability of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy clinic: the HADS in a cardiomyopathy population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 28(1):55–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rapp SR,
    2. Parisi SA,
    3. Walsh DA,
    4. et al.
    (1988) Detecting depression in elderly medical inpatients. J Consult Clin Psychol 56(4):509–513.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Razavi D,
    2. Delvaux N,
    3. Farvacques C,
    4. Robaye E
    (1990) Screening for adjustment disorders and major depressive disorders in cancer in-patients. Br J Psychiatry 156:79–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Reuter K,
    2. Harter M
    (2000) Screening for mental disorders in cancer patients — discriminant validity of HADS and GHQ-12 assessed by standardized clinical interview. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 10:86–96.
    OpenUrl
    1. Rinaldi P,
    2. Mecocci P,
    3. Benedetti C,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Validation of the five-item geriatric depression scale in elderly subjects in three different settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 51(5):694–698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Roger PR,
    2. Johnson-Greene D
    (2009) Comparison of assessment measures for post-stroke depression. Clin Neuropsychol 23(5):780–793.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rovner BW,
    2. Shmuely-Dulitzi Y
    (1997) Screening for depression in low-vision elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 12(9):955–959.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sagen U,
    2. Vik TG,
    3. Moum T,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Screening for depression and anxiety after stroke: comparison of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Montogomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale. J Psychosom Res 67(4):325–332.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Scheinthal SM,
    2. Steer R,
    3. Giffin L,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Evaluating geriatric medical outpatients with the Beck Depression Inventory-FastScreen for medical patients. Aging Ment Health 5(2):143–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Schein RL,
    2. Koenig HG
    (1997) The center for epidemiological studies-depression (CES-D) scale: assessment of depression in the medically ill elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 12(4):436–446.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Serrano-Duenas M,
    2. Solledad SM
    (2008) Concurrent validation of the 21-item and 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale vs the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria to assess depression in patients with Parkinson's Disease: an exploratory analysis. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 14(3):233–238.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Shinar D,
    2. Gross CR,
    3. Price TR,
    4. et al.
    (1986) Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale. Stroke 17(2):241–245.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Silberman CD,
    2. Laks J,
    3. Capitao C,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Recognizing depression in patients with Parkinson's Disease. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 64(2B):407–411.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Singer S,
    2. Danker H,
    3. Dietz A,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Screening for mental disorders in laryngeal cancer patients: a comparison of 6 methods. Psychooncology 17(3):280–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sivrioglu EY,
    2. Sivrioglu K,
    3. Ertan T
    (2009) Reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in detection of post-stroke minor depression. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31(8):999–1006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Stafford L,
    2. Berk M,
    3. Jackson H
    (2007) Validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to screen for depression in patients with coronary artery disease. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 29(5):417–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Strik J,
    2. Honig A,
    3. Lousberg R,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Sensitivity and specificity of observer and self-report questionnaires in major and minor depression following myocardial infarction. Psychosomatics 42(5):423–428.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tang WK,
    2. Ungvari GS,
    3. Chiu HFK,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Screening post-stroke depression in Chinese older adults using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Aging Ment Health 8(5):397–399.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tang W,
    2. Chan S,
    3. Chiu H,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Can the Geriatric Depression Scale detect poststroke depression in Chinese elderly? J Affect Disord 81(2):153–156.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Thekkumpurath P,
    2. Venkateswaran C,
    3. Kumar M,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Screening for psychological distress in palliative care: performance of touch screen questionnaires compared with semistructured psychiatric interview. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(4):597–605.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Turner JA,
    2. Romano JM
    (1984) Self-report screening measures for depression in chronic pain patients. J Clin Psychol 40(4):909–913.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Upadhyaya A,
    2. Stanley I
    (1997) Detection of depression in primary care: comparison of two self-administered scales. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 12(1):35–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vahter L,
    2. Kreegipuu T,
    3. Gross-Paju K
    (2007) One question as a screening instrument for depression in people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil 21(5):460–464.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vargas H,
    2. Matsuo T,
    3. Blay S
    (2007) Validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale for patients seen at general outpatient clinics. Clin Gerontol 30:65–78.
    OpenUrl
    1. Walker J,
    2. Postma K,
    3. McHugh GS,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Performance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as a screening tool for major depressive disorder in cancer patients. J Psychosom Res 63(1):83–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Watnick S,
    2. Wang PL,
    3. Demadura T,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Validation of 2 depression screening tools in dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 46(5):919–924.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Weintraub D,
    2. Oehlberg K,
    3. Katz I,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Test characteristics of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Parkinson disease. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 14(2):169–175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Wilhelm K,
    2. Kotze B,
    3. Waterhouse M,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Screening for depression in the medically ill: a comparison of self-report measures, clinician judgment, and DSM-IV diagnoses. Psychosomatics 45(6):469.
    OpenUrl
    1. Williams LS,
    2. Brizendin EJ,
    3. Plue L,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening tool for depression after stroke. Stroke 36(3):635–638.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  178. ↵
    1. Cox JL,
    2. Holden JM,
    3. Sagovsky R
    (1987) Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. British Journal of Psychotherapy 150:782–786.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (593)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 593
December 2011
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article
Citation Tools

Case identification of depression in patients with chronic physical health problems: a diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of 113 studies
Nicholas Meader, Alex J Mitchell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, David Goldberg, Maria Rizzo, Victoria Bird, David Kessler, Jon Packham, Mark Haddad, Stephen Pilling
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (593): e808-e820. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X613151
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice