使用多模态评估重新评估脊柱手术候选者的抑郁认定。

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Braeden Benedict, Madelyn Frumkin, Kathleen Botterbush, Saad Javeed, Justin K Zhang, Salim Yakdan, Brian J Neuman, Michael P Steinmetz, Zoher Ghogawala, Michael P Kelly, Burel R Goodin, Jay F Piccirillo, Wilson Z Ray, Thomas L Rodebaugh, Jacob K Greenberg
{"title":"使用多模态评估重新评估脊柱手术候选者的抑郁认定。","authors":"Braeden Benedict, Madelyn Frumkin, Kathleen Botterbush, Saad Javeed, Justin K Zhang, Salim Yakdan, Brian J Neuman, Michael P Steinmetz, Zoher Ghogawala, Michael P Kelly, Burel R Goodin, Jay F Piccirillo, Wilson Z Ray, Thomas L Rodebaugh, Jacob K Greenberg","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.01195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Depression is common in spine surgery candidates and may influence postoperative outcomes. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) can overcome limitations of existing depression screening methods (e.g., recall bias, inaccuracy of historical diagnoses) by longitudinally monitoring depression symptoms in daily life. In this study, we compared EMA-based depression assessment with retrospective self-report (a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and chart-based depression diagnosis in lumbar spine surgery candidates. We further examined the associations of each depression assessment method with surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery (n = 122) completed EMAs quantifying depressive symptoms up to 5 times daily for 3 weeks preoperatively. Correlations (rank-biserial or Spearman) among EMA means, a chart-based depression history, and 1-time preoperative depression surveys (PHQ-9 and Psychache Scale) were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to categorize PHQ-9 questions as somatic or non-somatic; subscores were compared with a propensity score-matched general population cohort. The associations of each screening modality with 6-month surgical outcomes (pain, disability, physical function, pain interference) were analyzed with multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The association between EMA Depression scores and a depression history was weak (r rb = 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14 to 0.52]). Moderate correlations with EMA-measured depression symptoms were observed for the PHQ-9 (r s = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63]) and the Psychache Scale (r s = 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.76]). Compared with the matched general population cohort, spine surgery candidates endorsed similar non-somatic symptoms but significantly greater somatic symptoms on the PHQ-9. EMA Depression scores had a stronger association with 6-month surgical outcomes than the other depression screening modalities did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A history of depression in the medical record is not a reliable indication of preoperative depression symptom severity. Cross-sectional depression assessments such as PHQ-9 have stronger associations with daily depression symptoms but may conflate somatic depression symptoms with spine-related disability. As an alternative to these methods, mobile health technology and EMAs provide an opportunity to collect real-time, longitudinal data on depression symptom severity, potentially improving prognostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":"1704-1712"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Multimodal Assessments to Reevaluate Depression Designations for Spine Surgery Candidates.\",\"authors\":\"Braeden Benedict, Madelyn Frumkin, Kathleen Botterbush, Saad Javeed, Justin K Zhang, Salim Yakdan, Brian J Neuman, Michael P Steinmetz, Zoher Ghogawala, Michael P Kelly, Burel R Goodin, Jay F Piccirillo, Wilson Z Ray, Thomas L Rodebaugh, Jacob K Greenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.23.01195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Depression is common in spine surgery candidates and may influence postoperative outcomes. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) can overcome limitations of existing depression screening methods (e.g., recall bias, inaccuracy of historical diagnoses) by longitudinally monitoring depression symptoms in daily life. In this study, we compared EMA-based depression assessment with retrospective self-report (a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and chart-based depression diagnosis in lumbar spine surgery candidates. We further examined the associations of each depression assessment method with surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery (n = 122) completed EMAs quantifying depressive symptoms up to 5 times daily for 3 weeks preoperatively. Correlations (rank-biserial or Spearman) among EMA means, a chart-based depression history, and 1-time preoperative depression surveys (PHQ-9 and Psychache Scale) were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to categorize PHQ-9 questions as somatic or non-somatic; subscores were compared with a propensity score-matched general population cohort. The associations of each screening modality with 6-month surgical outcomes (pain, disability, physical function, pain interference) were analyzed with multivariable regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The association between EMA Depression scores and a depression history was weak (r rb = 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14 to 0.52]). Moderate correlations with EMA-measured depression symptoms were observed for the PHQ-9 (r s = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63]) and the Psychache Scale (r s = 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.76]). Compared with the matched general population cohort, spine surgery candidates endorsed similar non-somatic symptoms but significantly greater somatic symptoms on the PHQ-9. EMA Depression scores had a stronger association with 6-month surgical outcomes than the other depression screening modalities did.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A history of depression in the medical record is not a reliable indication of preoperative depression symptom severity. Cross-sectional depression assessments such as PHQ-9 have stronger associations with daily depression symptoms but may conflate somatic depression symptoms with spine-related disability. As an alternative to these methods, mobile health technology and EMAs provide an opportunity to collect real-time, longitudinal data on depression symptom severity, potentially improving prognostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1704-1712\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01195\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01195","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:抑郁症在脊柱手术患者中很常见,可能会影响术后效果。生态瞬间评估(EMA)可通过纵向监测日常生活中的抑郁症状,克服现有抑郁症筛查方法的局限性(如回忆偏差、历史诊断不准确等)。在本研究中,我们比较了基于 EMA 的抑郁评估与回顾性自我报告(9 项患者健康问卷 [PHQ-9])和基于病历的腰椎手术候选者抑郁诊断。我们进一步研究了每种抑郁评估方法与手术结果之间的关联:方法:接受腰椎手术的成年患者(n = 122)在术前 3 周内完成了 EMA,每天最多 5 次量化抑郁症状。分析了 EMA 平均值、基于病历的抑郁病史以及术前 1 次抑郁调查(PHQ-9 和心理痛苦量表)之间的相关性(秩比值或斯皮尔曼)。采用确证因子分析将 PHQ-9 问题分为躯体抑郁和非躯体抑郁;将子分数与倾向分数匹配的普通人群队列进行比较。通过多变量回归分析了每种筛查方式与 6 个月手术结果(疼痛、残疾、身体功能、疼痛干扰)之间的关系:结果:EMA 抑郁症评分与抑郁症病史之间的相关性较弱(rrb = 0.34 [95% 置信区间 (CI),0.14 至 0.52])。PHQ-9(rs = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63])和心理痛苦量表(rs = 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.76])与 EMA 测量的抑郁症状呈中度相关。与匹配的普通人群队列相比,脊柱手术患者在 PHQ-9 上表现出的非躯体症状相似,但躯体症状明显更多。与其他抑郁筛查方式相比,EMA抑郁评分与6个月手术结果的关联性更强:结论:医疗记录中的抑郁症病史并不能可靠地说明术前抑郁症状的严重程度。PHQ-9等横断面抑郁评估与日常抑郁症状的关联性更强,但可能会将躯体抑郁症状与脊柱相关残疾混为一谈。作为这些方法的替代方法,移动医疗技术和 EMA 为收集抑郁症状严重程度的实时、纵向数据提供了机会,有可能提高预后的准确性:证据级别:诊断三级。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Multimodal Assessments to Reevaluate Depression Designations for Spine Surgery Candidates.

Background: Depression is common in spine surgery candidates and may influence postoperative outcomes. Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) can overcome limitations of existing depression screening methods (e.g., recall bias, inaccuracy of historical diagnoses) by longitudinally monitoring depression symptoms in daily life. In this study, we compared EMA-based depression assessment with retrospective self-report (a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) and chart-based depression diagnosis in lumbar spine surgery candidates. We further examined the associations of each depression assessment method with surgical outcomes.

Methods: Adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery (n = 122) completed EMAs quantifying depressive symptoms up to 5 times daily for 3 weeks preoperatively. Correlations (rank-biserial or Spearman) among EMA means, a chart-based depression history, and 1-time preoperative depression surveys (PHQ-9 and Psychache Scale) were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to categorize PHQ-9 questions as somatic or non-somatic; subscores were compared with a propensity score-matched general population cohort. The associations of each screening modality with 6-month surgical outcomes (pain, disability, physical function, pain interference) were analyzed with multivariable regression.

Results: The association between EMA Depression scores and a depression history was weak (r rb = 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14 to 0.52]). Moderate correlations with EMA-measured depression symptoms were observed for the PHQ-9 (r s = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63]) and the Psychache Scale (r s = 0.68 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.76]). Compared with the matched general population cohort, spine surgery candidates endorsed similar non-somatic symptoms but significantly greater somatic symptoms on the PHQ-9. EMA Depression scores had a stronger association with 6-month surgical outcomes than the other depression screening modalities did.

Conclusions: A history of depression in the medical record is not a reliable indication of preoperative depression symptom severity. Cross-sectional depression assessments such as PHQ-9 have stronger associations with daily depression symptoms but may conflate somatic depression symptoms with spine-related disability. As an alternative to these methods, mobile health technology and EMAs provide an opportunity to collect real-time, longitudinal data on depression symptom severity, potentially improving prognostic accuracy.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
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