CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The validity and reliability of screening measures for depression and anxiety disorders in multiple sclerosis

Open access
Marrie, Ruth Ann, Zhang, Lixia, Lix, Lisa M., Graff, Lesley A., Walker, John R., Fisk, John D., Patten, Scott B., Hitchon, Carol A., Bolton, James M., Sareen, Jitender, El-Gabalawy, Renée, Marriott, James J., Bernstein, Charles N.·2018·Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of multiple screening measures for depression and anxiety for use in the clinical care of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Participants with MS completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Kessler-6 Distress Scale, PROMIS Emotional Distress Depression Short-Form 8a (PROMIS Depression) and Anxiety Short-Form 8a (PROMIS Anxiety), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale (GAD-7), and the Overall Anxiety and Severity Impairment Scale (OASIS). A subgroup repeated the screening measures two weeks later. All participants also completed a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (SCID). For the screening measures we computed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive value with SCID diagnoses as the reference standard and conducted receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses; we also assessed internal consistency and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Of 253 participants, the SCID classified 10.3% with major depression and 14.6% with generalized anxiety disorder. Among the depression measures, the PHQ-9 had the highest sensitivity (84%). Specificity was generally higher than sensitivity, and was highest for the HADS-D with a cut-point of 11 (95%). In ROC analyses the area under the curve (AUC) did not differ between depression measures. Among the anxiety measures, sensitivity was highest for the HADS-A with a cut-point of 8 (82%). Specificity ranged from 83% to 86% for all measures except the HADS-A with a cut-point of 8 (68%). The AUC did not differ between anxiety measures. CONCLUSION: Overall, performance of the depression and anxiety screening measures was very similar, with reasonable psychometric properties for the MS population, suggesting that other factors such as accessibility and ease of use could guide the choice of measure in clinical practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.007

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Marrie, 2017, A prospective study of the effects of psychiatric comorbidity in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: rationale, protocol and participation, JMIR Research Protocols

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–169 of 169

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Marrie, R. A., Zhang, L., Lix, L. M., Graff, L. A., Walker, J. R., Fisk, J. D., Patten, S. B., Hitchon, C. A., Bolton, J. M., Sareen, J., El-Gabalawy, R., Marriott, J. J., & Bernstein, C. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Marrie, Ruth Ann
ORCID
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
20
Pages
9-15
ISSN
2211-0348 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.msard.2017.12.007
OpenAlex
W2771966364
Cited by
169
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 4
FWCI
16.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Crohn's and Colitis Canada
  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (THC-135234, 333252)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, depression screening, anxiety screening, PHQ-9, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, PROMIS, GAD-7, OASIS, Kessler-6, sensitivity and specificity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, psychometric properties, generalized anxiety disorder
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results

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