CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 372Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major Depression

Screening and case finding for major depressive disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis

Moriarty, Andrew Stephen, Gilbody, Simon, McMillan, Dean, Manea, Laura·2015·General Hospital Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is a widely used screening tool for major depressive disorder (MDD), although there is debate surrounding its diagnostic properties. For the PHQ-9, we aimed to: 1. Establish the diagnostic performance at the standard cutoff point (10). 2. Compare the diagnostic performance at the standard cutoff point in different clinical settings. 3. Assess whether there is selective reporting of cutoff points other than 10.Methods We searched three databases - Embase, MEDLINE and PSYCHInfo - and performed a reverse citation search in Web of Science. We selected for inclusion studies of any design that assessed the PHQ-9 in adult populations against recognized gold-standard instruments for the diagnosis of either Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases criteria for major depression. Included studies had to report sufficient information to calculate 2*2 contingency tables. Data extraction and synthesis were performed independently by two researchers. For the included studies, we calculated pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for cutoff points 7 to 15.Results Thirty-six studies (21,292 patients) met inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity for cutoff point 10 was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.84], and pooled specificity was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90). At this cutoff, the PHQ-9 is a better screener in primary care than secondary care settings. No conclusions could be drawn at cutoff points other than 10 due to selective reporting of data.Conclusions For MDD, the PHQ-9 has acceptable diagnostic properties at cutoff point 10 in different settings. We recommend that future studies report the full range of cutoff points to allow exploration of optimal cutoff points in different settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.012

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The PHQ-9 is well-validated and widely used.

    “It is well-validated and widely used.39”

    From Being Mindful: A Long-term Investigation of an Interdisciplinary Course in Mindfulness (2019) · cites this paper as [39]

  • The mild depressive symptoms category is under the cut-off value of 10 or higher consistently proposed to determine the presence of depression using the PHQ-8 and therefore could be indicative of subclinical depression or depressive mood.

    “The mild depressive symptoms category is under the cut-off value (10+) consistently proposed to determine the presence of depression using the PHQ-8 and, therefore, could be indicative of subclinical depression or depressive mood (Levis et al., 2019;Moriarty et al., 2015;Salk et al., 2017).”

    From Prevalence and age patterns of depression in the United Kingdom. A population-based study (2021) · cites this paper as Moriarty et al., 2015

  • The PHQ-8 shows suitable psychometric properties for use as a screening tool when compared to clinical interviews, showing very high but not perfect sensitivity and specificity to detect major depressive disorders at the general population level.

    “However, the PHQ-8 shows suitable psychometric properties for its use as a screening tool when compared to clinical interviews, showing a very high (but not perfect) sensitivity and specificity to detect major depressive disorders at the general population level (Levis et al., 2019;Moriarty et al., 2015;Wu et al., 2019).”

    From Prevalence and age patterns of depression in the United Kingdom. A population-based study (2021) · cites this paper as Moriarty et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moriarty, A. S., Gilbody, S., McMillan, D., & Manea, L.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Manea, Laura
ORCID
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
567-576
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.012
OpenAlex
W2157786695
Cited by
372
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2014-03-002, CL-2012-03-002)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
PHQ-9, major depressive disorder, depression screening, case finding, diagnostic accuracy, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity, primary care, secondary care, selective reporting
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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