CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 484Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesAging, Health, and Disability

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Screening for Depression in Elderly Primary Care Patients: A Comparison of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression Scale and the Geriatric Depression Scale

Lyness, Jeffrey M.·1997·Archives of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440250107012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Later-life depressive disorders are a major public health problem in primary care settings. A validated screening instrument might aid in the recognition of depression. However, available findings from younger patients may not generalize to older persons, and existing studies of screening instruments in older patient samples have suffered substantial methodological limitations. Methods: One hundred thirty patients 60 years or older attending 3 primary care internists' practices participated in the study. Two screening scales were used: the Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The Structured Clinical Interview for theDiagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised, was used to establish "gold standard" diagnoses including major and minor depressive disorders. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to determine each scale's operating characteristics. Results: Both the CES-D and the GDS had excellent properties in screening for major depression. The optimum cutoff point for the CES-D was 21, yielding a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 87%. The optimum cutoff point for the GDS was 10, yielding a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 84%. A shorter version of the GDS had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 81% using a cutoff point of 5. All scales lost accuracy when used to detect minor depression or the presence of any depressive diagnosis. Conclusions: The CES-D and the GDS have excellent properties for use as screening instruments for major depression in older primary care patients. Because the GDS's yes or no format may ease administration, primary care clinicians should consider its routine use in their practices. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:449-454

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440250107012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lyness, J. M.
Corresponding author
Lyness, Jeffrey M.
ORCID
Lyness, Jeffrey M.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1997-02-24
Volume
157
Issue
4
Pages
449
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archinte.1997.00440250107012
OpenAlex
W4293154690
Cited by
484
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 21
FWCI
23.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-01113)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
depression screening, elderly patients, primary care, Geriatric Depression Scale, CES-D, major depressive disorder, minor depression, screening instrument validity, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review