Cited by 45Treatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Early improvement in HAMD-17 and HAMD-6 scores predicts ultimate response and remission for depressed patients treated with fluoxetine or ECT

Lin, Huey-Shyan, Lin, Ching-Hua·2019·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background HAMD-6 is derived from the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17).We explore whether HAMD-6 is a reliable, valid, and sensitive to change measure, and whether early improvement using HAMD-6 can predict ultimate response/remission for inpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving either fluoxetine or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).Methods Data were from 2 trials for 126 MDD inpatients receiving fluoxetine, and 116 inpatients receiving ECT. Internal consistency, validity, and sensitivity to change using HAMD-17 and HAMD-6 at each assessment were examined and compared. Early improvement was defined as an at least 20% reduction of HAMD-17 or HAMD-6 scores at week 2 for patients receiving fluoxetine, or after 6 treatments for patients receiving ECT. Response was defined as ≥ 50% HAMD-17 score improvement from baseline, and remission was defined as a total HAMD-17 score of ≤ 7 at endpoint. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine which rating scale had better discriminative capacity.Results HAMD-6 is a reliable, valid, and sensitive to change measure. Early improvement using HAMD-6 had comparable predictive values with that of HAMD-17 for response/remission for patients receiving either fluoxetine or ECT.Limitations Samples were taken from 2 open-label trials with limited sample sizes.Conclusions HAMD-6 is a clinically useful measure. Those patients without early improvement, however, have a minimal chance of reaching ultimate response/remission, regardless of whether HAMD-17 or HAMD-6 was use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2018.10.105

Cites

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 45

Authors
Lin, H.-S., & Lin, C.-H.
Affiliations
  • Fooyin University (TW)
  • Kaohsiung Medical University (TW)
Corresponding author
Lin, Ching-Hua
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
245
Pages
91-97
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895789699
Cited by
45
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital (KSPH-2007-16, KSPH-2008-12)
  • Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST-103-2314-B-280-001-MY3)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, major depressive disorder, fluoxetine, electroconvulsive therapy, treatment response prediction, remission, early treatment response, inpatient depression
MeSH terms
Sadness, Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Female, Fluoxetine, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation

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