Cited by 1,966Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major Depression

Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): a meta-analysis

Open access
Manea, Laura, Gilbody, Simon, McMillan, Dean·2012·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The brief Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is commonly used to screen for depression with 10 often recommended as the cut-off score. We summarized the psychometric properties of the PHQ-9 across a range of studies and cut-off scores to select the optimal cut-off for detecting depression. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 1999 to August 2010 for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of PHQ-9 to diagnose major depressive disorders. We calculated summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios for detecting major depressive disorder at different cut-off scores and in different settings. We used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis at cutoff points between 7 and 15 to produce summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: We identified 18 validation studies (n = 7180) conducted in various clinical settings. Eleven studies provided details about the diagnostic properties of the questionnaire at more than one cut-off score (including 10), four studies reported a cut-off score of 10, and three studies reported cut-off scores other than 10. The pooled specificity results ranged from 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.82) for a cut-off score of 7 to 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) for a cut-off score of 15. There was major variability in sensitivity for cut-off scores between 7 and 15. There were no substantial differences in the pooled sensitivity and specificity for a range of cut-off scores (8-11). INTERPRETATION: The PHQ-9 was found to have acceptable diagnostic properties for detecting major depressive disorder for cut-off scores between 8 and 11. Authors of future validation studies should consistently report the outcomes for different cut-off scores.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.110829

Cites

38 of 38 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gräfe K, Zipfel S, Herzog W, et al. Screening for psychiatric disorders with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results from the German validation study. Diagnostica 2004;50:171-81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2011-12-19
Volume
184
Issue
3
Pages
E191-E196
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2099274262
Cited by
1,966
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 157 · 2025: 204 · 2024: 211 · 2023: 222 · 2022: 232 · 2021: 235 · 2020: 194 · 2019: 121 · 2018: 105 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2009-03-004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
PHQ-9, depression screening, major depressive disorder, cut-off values, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, summary receiver operating characteristic, questionnaire validation
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Odds Ratio

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