Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group

A. J. Mitchell, N. Meader, E. Davies, K. Clover, G. L. Carter, M. J. Loscalzo, W. Linden, L. Grassi, C. Johansen, L. E. Carlson, J. Zabora

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    Resumé

    Background: To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard. Methods: We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison. Results: Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n = 10.009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-11 all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had level 2c evidence. For every 100 people screened in advanced cancer, the two questions would accurately detect 18 cases, while missing only 1 and correctly reassure 74 with 7 falsely identified. For every 100 people screened in non-palliative settings the BDI-11 would accurately detect 17 cases, missing 2 and correctly re-assure 70, with 11 falsely identified as cases. The main cautions are the reliance on DSM-IV definitions of major depression, the large number of small studies and the paucity of data for many tools in specific settings. Conclusions: Although no single tool could be offered unqualified support, several tools are likely to improve upon unassisted clinical recognition. In clinical practice, all tools should form part of an integrated approach involving further follow-up, clinical assessment and evidence based therapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftJournal of Affective Disorders
    Vol/bind140
    Udgave nummer2
    Sider (fra-til)149-160
    Antal sider12
    ISSN0165-0327
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2012

    Citer dette

    Mitchell, A. J. ; Meader, N. ; Davies, E. ; Clover, K. ; Carter, G. L. ; Loscalzo, M. J. ; Linden, W. ; Grassi, L. ; Johansen, C. ; Carlson, L. E. ; Zabora, J. / Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group. I: Journal of Affective Disorders. 2012 ; Bind 140, Nr. 2. s. 149-160.
    @article{ca06667ae7a04c8b9c0a66a744d2b421,
    title = "Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group",
    abstract = "Background: To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard. Methods: We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison. Results: Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n = 10.009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-11 all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had level 2c evidence. For every 100 people screened in advanced cancer, the two questions would accurately detect 18 cases, while missing only 1 and correctly reassure 74 with 7 falsely identified. For every 100 people screened in non-palliative settings the BDI-11 would accurately detect 17 cases, missing 2 and correctly re-assure 70, with 11 falsely identified as cases. The main cautions are the reliance on DSM-IV definitions of major depression, the large number of small studies and the paucity of data for many tools in specific settings. Conclusions: Although no single tool could be offered unqualified support, several tools are likely to improve upon unassisted clinical recognition. In clinical practice, all tools should form part of an integrated approach involving further follow-up, clinical assessment and evidence based therapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
    author = "Mitchell, {A. J.} and N. Meader and E. Davies and K. Clover and Carter, {G. L.} and Loscalzo, {M. J.} and W. Linden and L. Grassi and C. Johansen and Carlson, {L. E.} and J. Zabora",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.043",
    language = "English",
    volume = "140",
    pages = "149--160",
    journal = "Journal of Affective Disorders",
    issn = "0165-0327",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "2",

    }

    Mitchell, AJ, Meader, N, Davies, E, Clover, K, Carter, GL, Loscalzo, MJ, Linden, W, Grassi, L, Johansen, C, Carlson, LE & Zabora, J 2012, 'Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group', Journal of Affective Disorders, bind 140, nr. 2, s. 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.043

    Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group. / Mitchell, A. J.; Meader, N.; Davies, E.; Clover, K.; Carter, G. L.; Loscalzo, M. J.; Linden, W.; Grassi, L.; Johansen, C.; Carlson, L. E.; Zabora, J.

    I: Journal of Affective Disorders, Bind 140, Nr. 2, 2012, s. 149-160.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Meta-analysis of screening and case finding tools for depression in cancer: Evidence based recommendations for clinical practice on behalf of the Depression in Cancer Care consensus group

    AU - Mitchell, A. J.

    AU - Meader, N.

    AU - Davies, E.

    AU - Clover, K.

    AU - Carter, G. L.

    AU - Loscalzo, M. J.

    AU - Linden, W.

    AU - Grassi, L.

    AU - Johansen, C.

    AU - Carlson, L. E.

    AU - Zabora, J.

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - Background: To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard. Methods: We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison. Results: Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n = 10.009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-11 all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had level 2c evidence. For every 100 people screened in advanced cancer, the two questions would accurately detect 18 cases, while missing only 1 and correctly reassure 74 with 7 falsely identified. For every 100 people screened in non-palliative settings the BDI-11 would accurately detect 17 cases, missing 2 and correctly re-assure 70, with 11 falsely identified as cases. The main cautions are the reliance on DSM-IV definitions of major depression, the large number of small studies and the paucity of data for many tools in specific settings. Conclusions: Although no single tool could be offered unqualified support, several tools are likely to improve upon unassisted clinical recognition. In clinical practice, all tools should form part of an integrated approach involving further follow-up, clinical assessment and evidence based therapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    AB - Background: To examine the validity of screening and case-finding tools used in the identification of depression as defined by an ICD10/DSM-IV criterion standard. Methods: We identified 63 studies involving 19 tools (in 33 publications) designed to help clinicians identify depression in cancer settings. We used a standardized rating system. We excluded 11 tools without at least two independent studies, leaving 8 tools for comparison. Results: Across all cancer stages there were 56 diagnostic validity studies (n = 10.009). For case-finding, one stem question, two stem questions and the BDI-11 all had level 2 evidence (2a, 2b and 2c respectively) and given their better acceptability we gave the stem questions a grade B recommendation. For screening, two stem questions had level 1b evidence (with high acceptability) and the BDI-II had level 2c evidence. For every 100 people screened in advanced cancer, the two questions would accurately detect 18 cases, while missing only 1 and correctly reassure 74 with 7 falsely identified. For every 100 people screened in non-palliative settings the BDI-11 would accurately detect 17 cases, missing 2 and correctly re-assure 70, with 11 falsely identified as cases. The main cautions are the reliance on DSM-IV definitions of major depression, the large number of small studies and the paucity of data for many tools in specific settings. Conclusions: Although no single tool could be offered unqualified support, several tools are likely to improve upon unassisted clinical recognition. In clinical practice, all tools should form part of an integrated approach involving further follow-up, clinical assessment and evidence based therapy. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.043

    DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.043

    M3 - Journal article

    C2 - 22633127

    VL - 140

    SP - 149

    EP - 160

    JO - Journal of Affective Disorders

    JF - Journal of Affective Disorders

    SN - 0165-0327

    IS - 2

    ER -