↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Agreement for depression diagnosis between DSM-IV-TR criteria, three validated scales, oncologist assessment, and psychiatric clinical interview in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Agreement for depression diagnosis between DSM-IV-TR criteria, three validated scales, oncologist assessment, and psychiatric clinical interview in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s71690
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wadih Rhondali, Gilles Freyer, Virginie Adam, Marilène Filbet, Martine Derzelle, Gaelle Abgrall-Barbry, Sophie Bourcelot, Jean-Louis Machavoine, Muriel Chomat-Neyraud, Olivier Gisserot, Rémi Largillier, Annick Le Rol, Frank Priou, Pierre Saltel, Claire Falandry

Abstract

Depression, a major outcome in cancer patients, is often evaluated by physicians relying on their clinical impressions rather than patient self-report. Our aim was to assess agreement between patient self-reported depression, oncologist assessment (OA), and psychiatric clinical interview (PCI) in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). This analysis was a secondary endpoint of the Elderly Women AOC Trial 3 (EWOT3), designed to assess the impact of geriatric covariates, notably depression, on survival in patients older than 70 years of age. Depression was assessed using the Geriatric Depression Scale-30 (GDS), the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, the distress thermometer, the mood thermometer, and OA. The interview guide for PCI was constructed from three validated scales: the GDS, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, revised (DSM) criteria for depression were used as a gold standard. Out of 109 patients enrolled at 21 centers, 99 (91%) completed all the assessments. Patient characteristics were: mean age 78, performance status ≥2: 47 (47%). Thirty six patients (36%) were identified as depressed by the PCI versus 15 (15%) identified by DSM. We found moderate agreement for depression identification between DSM and GDS (κ=0.508) and PCI (κ=0.431) and high agreement with MADRS (κ=0.663). We found low or no agreement between DSM with the other assessment strategies, including OA (κ=-0.043). Identification according to OA (yes/no) resulted in a false-negative rate of 87%. As a screening tool, GDS had the best sensitivity and specificity (94% and 80%, respectively). The use of validated tools, such as GDS, and collaboration between psychologists and oncologists are warranted to better identify emotional disorders in elderly women with AOC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Psychology 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2015.
All research outputs
#8,035,020
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#757
of 1,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,857
of 277,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#14
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.