CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Concordance between clinician-rated and patient reported outcome measures of depressive symptoms in treatment resistant depression

Open access
Hershenberg, Rachel, McDonald, William M., Crowell, Andrea, Riva-Posse, Patricio, Craighead, W. Edward, Mayberg, Helen S., Dunlop, Boadie W.·2020·Journal of Affective Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.108PMC PMC8672917
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Calls to implement measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry are increasing. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis concluded that there is insufficient evidence that routine application of patient reported outcomes (PROs) improves treatment outcomes for common psychiatric disorders. There is a particular paucity of this information in patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). Methods A TRD sample (n = 302) and a treatment-naïve sample with major depression (n = 344) were assessed for the level of agreement in depression severity between two PROs (the Beck Depression Inventory, BDI, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-report, QIDS-SR) and two Clinician Rated (CRs) measures (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HDRS, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS). Results Correlations between CR and PRO total scores in the TRD sample ranged from 0.57 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.68 (MADRS-BDI), reflecting a moderate-to-strong relationship between assessment tools. Correlations in the treatment naïve sample were non-significantly lower for most comparisons, ranging from 0.51 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.64 (MADRS-BDI). Few predictors of discordance between CRs and PROs were identified, though chronicity of the current episode in treatment-naïve patients was associated with greater agreement. Limitations Inter-rater reliability of the clinician interviews was conducted separately within the two studies so we could not determine the reliability between the two groups of raters used in the studies. Conclusion Findings generally supported acceptably high levels of agreement between patient and clinician ratings of baseline depression severity. More work is needed to determine the extent to which PROs can improve outcomes in MBC for depression and, more specifically, TRD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.108

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is adequate correspondence between patient self-reports and therapists' reports, suggesting the two measures could be interchangeable when evaluating mental disorders, functionality and quality of life.

    “there is adequate correspondence between data offered by patient self-reports and therapists', suggesting that the two measures could be interchangeable when evaluating mental disorders, functionality and quality of life (Guo et al., 2015; Hershenberg et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2018).”

    From Patients´ and Therapists´ Reports of Psychotherapy Outcomes: Similarities and Differences (2023) · cites this paper as Hershenberg et al., 2020

    The Discussion reports adequate agreement between patient and clinician ratings of depression severity, and says patient-reported measures can suffice for measurement-based care in refractory depression. It does not establish that the measures are interchangeable across mental disorders, functioning, or quality of life; for clinical research, it recommends continuing to use both. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JB, 1995. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0). Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York.
  2. Williams JB, 1989. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45, 742– 747. Spanish translation, Jan. 2009, obtained from author. 3395203

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hershenberg, R., McDonald, W. M., Crowell, A., Riva-Posse, P., Craighead, W. E., Mayberg, H. S., & Dunlop, B. W.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Dunlop, Boadie W.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
266
Pages
22-29
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.108
PMC
PMC8672917
OpenAlex
W3001030361
Cited by
40
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (P50-MH077083, R01-MH080880, UL1-RR025008, M01-RR0039, K23-MH086690)
  • Fuqua Family Foundation
  • Library Information Technology Services (UL1 TR000424)
  • Fuqua Family Foundations
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, patient-reported outcomes, measurement-based care, depression severity, Beck Depression Inventory, QIDS-SR, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Depression, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant

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