Screening for Depression in Medical Settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis
- 3.9k Downloads
To summarize the psychometric properties of the PHQ2 and PHQ9 as screening instruments for depression.
We identified 17 validation studies conducted in primary care; medical outpatients; and specialist medical services (cardiology, gynecology, stroke, dermatology, head injury, and otolaryngology). Electronic databases from 1994 to February 2007 (MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane registers) plus study reference lists have been used for this study. Translations included US English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, German and Arabic). Summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios (OR) against a gold standard (DSM-IV) Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) were calculated for each study. We used random effects bivariate meta-analysis at recommended cut points to produce summary receiver–operator characteristic (sROC) curves. We explored heterogeneity with metaregression.
Measurements and Main Results
Fourteen studies (5,026 participants) validated the PHQ9 against MDD: sensitivity = 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.87); specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95); positive likelihood ratio = 10.12 (95% CI 6.52–15.67); negative likelihood ratio = 0.22 (0.15 to 0.32). There was substantial heterogeneity (Diagnostic Odds Ratio heterogeneity I2 = 82%), which was not explained by study setting (primary care versus general hospital); method of scoring (cutoff ≥ 10 versus “diagnostic algorithm”); or study quality (blinded versus unblinded). The diagnostic validity of the PHQ2 was only validated in 3 studies and showed wide variability in sensitivity.
The PHQ9 is acceptable, and as good as longer clinician-administered instruments in a range of settings, countries, and populations. More research is needed to validate the PHQ2 to see if its diagnostic properties approach those of the PHQ9.
Key wordsdepression screening questionnaire psychometrics
We are grateful to Dr Peter Bower for comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank authors for providing unpublished data, and answering queries about study design. There is no external or internal funding for this project.
Conflict of interest
- 6.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Screening for Depression: Systematic Evidence Review Number 6. Rockville MD: AHRQ, 2002.Google Scholar
- 12.Deeks J. Evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care. London: BMJ Books, 2000:248–82.Google Scholar
- 14.Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–234.Google Scholar
- 16.World Health Organisation. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems—10th Revision. Geneva: WHO, 1990.Google Scholar
- 17.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual—4th Edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.Google Scholar
- 21.Churchill R, Hunot V, McGuire H. Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group. Cochrane Library 2004;2.Google Scholar
- 22.Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine. Boston, MA.: Little, Brown and Company, 1991.Google Scholar
- 28.Knottnerus JA, ed. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Publishing, 2002.Google Scholar
- 33.Begg CB. Publication bias. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, eds. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994:399–409.Google Scholar
- 40.Wulsin L, Somoza E, Heck J. The feasibility of using the Spanish PHQ-9 to screen for depression in primary care in Honduras. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatr. 2002;4:191–5.Google Scholar
- 49.Gilbody S, Richards D, Barkham M. Diagnosing depression in primary care using self-completed instruments: a UK validation of the PHQ9 and CORE-OM. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):65–652.Google Scholar
- 53.Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar