...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Interventions in Aging >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
【24h】

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

机译:DSM-IV-TR标准,三种有效量表,肿瘤学家评估和老年晚期卵巢癌患者的精神科临床访谈之间的抑郁症诊断协议

获取原文

摘要

Background: 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).Methods: 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.Results: 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 (yeso) resulted in a false-negative rate of 87%. As a screening tool, GDS had the best sensitivity and specificity (94% and 80%, respectively).Conclusion: 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.
机译:背景:抑郁症是癌症患者的主要结局,通常由医生根据他们的临床印象而不是患者的自我报告来评估。我们的目的是评估老年晚期卵巢癌(AOC)患者的自我报告的抑郁症,肿瘤学家评估(OA)和精神病学临床访谈(PCI)之间的一致性。方法:该分析是老年女性AOC的次要终点试验3(EWOT3)用于评估老年协变量(尤其是抑郁症)对70岁以上患者生存的影响。使用老年抑郁量表30(GDS),医院焦虑抑郁量表,遇险温度计,情绪温度计和OA评估抑郁症。 PCI的面试指南由三个经过验证的量表构成:GDS,汉密尔顿抑郁量表和蒙哥马利·阿斯伯格抑郁量表(MADRS)。精神疾病诊断和统计手册,第四版,抑郁症修订标准(DSM)被用作黄金标准。结果:在21个中心的109名患者中,有99名(91%)完成了所有评估。患者特征为:平均年龄78岁,表现状态≥2:47(47%)。 PCI识别出的抑郁症患者为36例(36%),而DSM则为15例(15%)。我们发现DSM和GDS(κ= 0.508)和PCI(κ= 0.431)之间的抑郁症识别程度适中,与MADRS(κ= 0.663)高度一致。我们发现DSM与其他评估策略(包括OA)之间的一致性较低或没有一致性(κ= -0.043)。根据OA进行鉴定(是/否)导致假阴性率为87%。作为一种筛查工具,GDS具有最高的敏感性和特异性(分别为94%和80%)。结论:使用经验证的工具(例如GDS)以及心理学家和肿瘤学家之间的合作可确保更好地识别老年女性的情绪障碍与AOC。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号