The diagnostic validity of depression scales and clinical judgement in the Kurdistan region of Iraq

Zerak Al-salihy, T. Rahim, M. Mahmud, Asma S. Muhyaldin, A. Mitchell
{"title":"The diagnostic validity of depression scales and clinical judgement in the Kurdistan region of Iraq","authors":"Zerak Al-salihy, T. Rahim, M. Mahmud, Asma S. Muhyaldin, A. Mitchell","doi":"10.1192/S1749367600003416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We aimed to find the depression rating scale with the greatest accuracy when applied by psychiatrists in Iraqi Kurdistan. We recruited 200 patients with primary depression and 200 controls living in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The Mini International Neuropsychiatry Inventory (MINI) was used as a gold standard for DSM-IV depression. We also used: the two-item and the nine-item versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2, PHQ9), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. Interviews were performed by psychiatrists who also rated their clinical judgement using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and other mental health practitioners. All scales and tools performed with high accuracy and reliability. The least accurate tool was the PHQ2; however, with only two items it was efficient. Sensitivity and specificity for all tools were above 90%. Clinicians using the CGI were accurate in their clinical judgement. The CDSS appeared to be the most accurate scale for DSM-IV major depression and the PHQ2 the most efficient. However, only the CDSS appeared to offer an advantage over psychiatrists’ judgement.","PeriodicalId":88529,"journal":{"name":"International psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists","volume":"9 1","pages":"96 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1192/S1749367600003416","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/S1749367600003416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

We aimed to find the depression rating scale with the greatest accuracy when applied by psychiatrists in Iraqi Kurdistan. We recruited 200 patients with primary depression and 200 controls living in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The Mini International Neuropsychiatry Inventory (MINI) was used as a gold standard for DSM-IV depression. We also used: the two-item and the nine-item versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2, PHQ9), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. Interviews were performed by psychiatrists who also rated their clinical judgement using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and other mental health practitioners. All scales and tools performed with high accuracy and reliability. The least accurate tool was the PHQ2; however, with only two items it was efficient. Sensitivity and specificity for all tools were above 90%. Clinicians using the CGI were accurate in their clinical judgement. The CDSS appeared to be the most accurate scale for DSM-IV major depression and the PHQ2 the most efficient. However, only the CDSS appeared to offer an advantage over psychiatrists’ judgement.
伊拉克库尔德斯坦地区抑郁症量表的诊断效度及临床判断
我们的目标是找到在伊拉克库尔德斯坦精神病医生应用时具有最高准确性的抑郁评定量表。我们招募了200名原发抑郁症患者和200名生活在伊拉克库尔德斯坦地区的对照组。迷你国际神经精神病学量表(Mini)被用作DSM-IV抑郁症的金标准。我们还使用了:两项和九项版本的患者健康问卷(PHQ2, PHQ9),医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS),精神分裂症卡尔加里抑郁量表(CDSS)和流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D)。访谈由精神科医生进行,他们也使用临床总体印象量表(CGI)和其他心理健康从业人员对他们的临床判断进行评分。所有的天平和工具都具有高精度和可靠性。最不准确的工具是PHQ2;然而,只有两个项目是有效的。所有工具的敏感性和特异性均在90%以上。临床医生使用CGI的临床判断是准确的。CDSS似乎是DSM-IV重度抑郁症最准确的量表,PHQ2是最有效的量表。然而,只有CDSS似乎比精神科医生的判断更有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信