Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 589

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer.

Passik, S D, Dugan, W, McDonald, M V, Rosenfeld, B, Theobald, D E, Edgerton, S·1998·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was performed as part of a large depression screening project in cancer patients to determine the degree of physician recognition of levels of depressive symptoms in cancer patients and to describe patient characteristics that influence the accuracy of physician perception of depressive symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-five ambulatory oncology clinics affiliated with Community Cancer Care, Inc of Indiana enrolled and surveyed 1,109 subjects treated by 12 oncologists. Subjects completed the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS) and physicians were asked to rate their patients' level of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and pain using numerical rating scales. Subjects' sex, age, primary tumor type, medications, primary caregiver, and disease stage at diagnosis were also recorded. RESULTS: Physician ratings of depression were significantly associated with their patients' levels of endorsement of depressive symptoms on the ZSDS. However, agreement between physicians and patients is most frequently clustered when patients report little or no depressive symptoms. While physician ratings are concordant with patient endorsement of no significant depressive symptomatology 79% of the time, they are only concordant 33% and 13% of the time in the mild-to-moderate/severe ranges, respectively. Physician ratings were most influenced by patient endorsement of frequent and obvious mood symptoms, ie, sadness, crying, and irritability. Physician ratings also appeared to be influenced by medical correlates of patients' level of depressive symptoms (functional status, stage of disease, and site of tumor). Additionally, patients whose depression was inaccurately classified reported significantly higher levels of pain and had higher levels of disability. Physicians' ratings of depression were most highly correlated with physicians' ratings of patients' anxiety and pain. CONCLUSION: Physicians' perceptions of depressive symptoms in their patients are correlated with patient's ratings, but there is a marked tendency to underestimate the level of depressive symptoms in patients who are more depressed. They are most influenced by symptoms such as crying and depressed mood, and medical factors that are useful, but not the most reliable, indicators of depression in this population. Physicians' ratings of their patients' distress symptoms seem to be global in nature--they are highly correlated with anxiety, pain, and global dysfunction. Physician assessment might be improved if they were instructed to assess and probe for the more reliable cognitive symptoms such as anhedonia, guilt, suicidal thinking, and hopelessness. Screening instruments and the use of brief follow-up interviews would help to identify patients who are depressed.

Overview

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 · 10.1200/jco.1998.16.4.1594

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 589

Metadata

Authors
Passik, S. D., Dugan, W., McDonald, M. V., Rosenfeld, B., Theobald, D. E., & Edgerton, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1998-04
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
1594-1600
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1959947112
Cited by
589
References
4
FWCI
6.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.4.1594
The paper
Passik, S. D., Dugan, W., McDonald, M. V., Rosenfeld, B., Theobald, D. E., & Edgerton, S. (1998). Oncologists' recognition of depression in their patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.4.1594

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.