Cited by 68Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Evaluation of the 9–Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–9) as an Assessment Instrument for Symptoms of Depression in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Sjonnesen, Kirsten, Berzins, Sandy, Fiest, Kirsten M., Bulloch, Andrew G. M., Metz, Luanne M., Thombs, Brett D., Patten, Scott B.·2012·Postgraduate Medicine

Abstract

Background Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have a high prevalence of depression, but there are concerns regarding assessment of possible depression status using rating scales, such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). The idea has been proposed that PHQ-9 scores are contaminated by the MS symptoms of fatigue and impaired concentration, decreasing the validity of measurement. Objectives To determine the extent to which scores on the PHQ-9 are contaminated by patients reporting symptoms attributable to MS. Methods Baseline PHQ-9 scores from an ongoing prospective cohort study of depression in patients with MS (N = 173) were compared with those of a general population sample (N = 3304). Depression prevalence estimates for the MS and general population samples were calculated using conventional algorithm and cutoff point scoring methods, as well as modified scoring methods, excluding fatigue and concentration deficits. Correlations between scores on adjusted scoring methods were analyzed. The proportion that each item contributed to total PHQ-9 scores was also calculated. A logistic regression model evaluated the relationship between symptom severity and MS status corrected for age, sex, and other depressive symptoms. Results Conventional PHQ-9 algorithm and cutoff point scoring yielded 2-week prevalence estimates of 9.8% and 21.4%, respectively, in patients with MS, and 3.3% and 8.4%, respectively, in the general population. In both samples, conventional and…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3810/pgm.2012.09.2595

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
Sjonnesen, K., Berzins, S., Fiest, K. M., Bulloch, A. G. M., Metz, L. M., Thombs, B. D., & Patten, S. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Patten, Scott B.
Venue
Postgraduate Medicine
Published
2012-09
Volume
124
Issue
5
Pages
69-77
ISSN
  • 0032-5481 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-9260
OpenAlex
W2065029747
Cited by
68
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Postgraduate Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Alberta Innovates
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, depression, PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire, depression screening, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression prevalence, guilt
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Comorbidity, Logistic Models

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