Cited by 129Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPain Management and Opioid Use

Depression in chronic pain patients: Prevalence and measurement

Poole, Helen, White, Susie, Blake, Chantal, Murphy, Peter, Bramwell, Ros·2009·Pain Practice

Abstract

This study aimed to: (1) determine prevalence of depression in patients referred to specialist pain services using the Structured Clinical Interview (SCID) diagnostic interview, (2) compare results on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) with the SCID to determine the utility of the BDI-II as a screening tool in this population. Thirty-six participants were recruited, mainly women, with a mean age = 47.83 years (standard deviation = 12.85 years), who were heterogeneous with regard to their pain. All completed the BDI-II and SCID. The SCID diagnosed 26 (72%) cases of depression. BDI-II scores showed 31 (86%) that reported at least mild depression. Agreement between BDI-II scores over threshold for mild depression and SCID diagnosis were assessed by Cohen's kappa (= 0.6). ROC analysis for BDI-II scores against SCID diagnosis gave a large area under the curve (0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.02), suggesting BDI-II is an excellent screen for this population, although the curve was unusual in that sensitivity was high even when the false positive rate was zero. ROC analysis suggested 22 or above as an optimum cut-off score for depression on the BDI-II-higher than for a general population sample. It has been suggested that the BDI overestimates incidence of depression in pain patients, but this study confirmed through diagnostic interview the very high incidence of depression in this population. It is therefore questionable whether there is value in screening referrals…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00274.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Poole, H., White, S., Blake, C., Murphy, P., & Bramwell, R.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Walton Centre (GB)
  • University of Chester (GB)
Corresponding author
Poole, Helen
Venue
Pain Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-27
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
173-180
ISSN
  • 1530-7085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-2500
OpenAlex
W2003521553
Cited by
129
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
depression, chronic pain, prevalence, Beck Depression Inventory-II, severe combined immunodeficiency, depression screening, cut-off values, diagnostic agreement, pain clinic patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pain Measurement, Pain, Intractable, Intractable Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Marital Status, Age of Onset, Sex Distribution

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