CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 282Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differentiating moderate and severe depression using the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS)

Müller, M·2003·Journal of Affective Disorders
DOI 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00120-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background MADRS cut-off scores for moderate and severe depression were estimated in relation to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI).Method HAMD(17), MADRS, and CGI ratings from patients with major depression (DSM-IV) were analyzed (N=85). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were applied.Results Mean age was 51.4+/-14.5 years, 69% were female. Mean MADRS scores were 23.4+/-13.2, HAMD(17), MADRS, and CGI scores were highly correlated (r>0.85; P<0.0001). Best separation between moderate and severe depression according to CGI criteria was achieved with a MADRS score of 31 (sensitivity 93.5%, specificity 83.3%).Limitations Studies to validate severity gradations including DSM-IV or ICD-10 diagnostic severity categories are recommended.Conclusions Empirically based MADRS cut-off scores to separate moderate from severe depression on the basis of HAMD(17) and CGI severity ratings in patients with major depression were yielded.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00120-9

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 282

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Müller, M.
Affiliations
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Müller, M
ORCID
Müller, M
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-12
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
255-260
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00120-9
OpenAlex
W1979534890
Cited by
282
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, depression severity, moderate depression, severe depression, cut-off values, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression Scale, major depressive disorder, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Status Schedule, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Severity of Illness Index, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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