The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening and case finding for major depressive disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
Reitsma, J. B., Glas, A. S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Scholten, R. J. P. M., Bossuyt, P. M., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022 · Cited by 3,369 · cited 1×
“Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive/ negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs)were calculated using random effects bivariatemeta-analysis [7].”
MethodHow should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Deeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Manea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2012) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.110829 · Cited by 1,966
Self-citationGilbody, S., Richards, D., Brealey, S., & Hewitt, C. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0333-y · Cited by 1,290
Self-citationValidation of PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 to Screen for Major Depression in the Primary Care Population
Arroll, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Crengle, S., Gunn, J., Kerse, N., Fishman, T., Falloon, K., & Hatcher, S. (2010) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1139 · Cited by 1,279 · cited 2×
“Of the 36 samples, half (18 studies) were conducted in countries speaking predominantly English [6,14–30].”
BackgroundLOWE, B. (2004) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00237-9 · Cited by 1,060
Screening psychischer Störungen mit dem “Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D)“
Gräfe, K., Zipfel, S., Herzog, W., & Löwe, B. (2004) · Diagnostica · doi:10.1026/0012-1924.50.4.171 · Cited by 805
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Levis, B., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l1476 · Cited by 1,718
Levis, B., Sun, Y., He, C., Wu, Y., Krishnan, A., Bhandari, P. M., Neupane, D., Imran, M., Brehaut, E., Negeri, Z., et al. (2020) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6504 · Cited by 577
Kroenke, K., Wu, J., Yu, Z., Bair, M. J., Kean, J., Stump, T., & Monahan, P. O. (2016) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000322 · Cited by 504
Wu, Y., Levis, B., Riehm, K. E., Saadat, N., Levis, A. W., Azar, M., Rice, D. B., Boruff, J., Cuijpers, P., Gilbody, S., et al. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719001314 · Cited by 423
Self-citationPsychological impact of COVID-19 lockdown: An online survey from India
Grover, S., Sahoo, S., Mehra, A., Avasthi, A., Tripathi, A., Subramanyan, A., Pattojoshi, A., Rao, G., Saha, G., Mishra, K., et al. (2020) · Indian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.4103/psychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_427_20 · Cited by 428
Metadata
- Authors
- Moriarty, A. S., Gilbody, S., McMillan, D., & Manea, L.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Manea, Laura
- Venue
- General Hospital Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 567-576
- ISSN
- 0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › 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
