Search

Objective: To ascertain the prevalence and predictors of mood disorders, determined by structured clinical interviews (ICD or DSM criteria) in people after stroke., Methods: Major electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2016 for studies involving major depression (MDD), minor depression (MnD), dysthymia, adjustment disorder, any depressive disorder (any depressive disorder) and anxiety disorders. Studies were combined using both random and fixed effects meta-analysis and results were stratified as appropriate., Results: Depression was examined on 147 occasions from 2days to 7years after stroke (mean 6.87months, N=33 in acute, N=43 in rehabilitation and N=69 in the community/outpatients). Across 128 analyses involving 15,573 patients assessed for major depressive disorder (MDD), the point prevalence of depression was 17.7% (95% CI=15.6% to 20.0%) 0.65 analyses involving 9720 patients determined MnD was present in 13.1% in all settings (95% CI=10.9% to 15.8%). Dysthymia was present in 3.1% (95% CI=2.1% to 5.3%), adjustment disorder in 6.9% (95% CI=4.6 to 9.7%) and anxiety in 9.8% (95% CI=5.9% to 14.8%). Any depressive disorder was present in 33.5% (95% CI=30.3% to 36.8%). The relative risk of any depressive disorder was higher following left (dominant) hemisphere stroke, aphasia, and among people with a family history and past history of mood disorders., Conclusion: Depression, adjustment disorder and anxiety are common after stroke. Risk factors are aphasia, dominant hemispheric lesions and past personal/family history of depression but not time since stroke., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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-II 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-II 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., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Objective: To examine the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the identification of psychiatric complications of cancer, as defined by a robust criterion standard. Methods: 50 analyses tested the depression subscale (HADS-D), anxiety subscale (HADS-A) or combined scales (HADS-T) against syndromal (clinical) depression (n =22), syndromal anxiety (n =4) or any mental ill health/distress (n =24), all defined by semi-structured psychiatric interview. Results: The HADS and its subscales had both strengths and limitations. Overall it appeared to perform marginally better in non-palliative cancer settings. Specific findings for each subscale were as follows. In the identification of depression the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 82.0%, 77.0%; 71.6%, 82.6% and 80.5%, 77.8%, respectively. All versions performed poorly in case-finding but well in a screening capacity. For anxiety there were no HADS-D studies. The HADS-T and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83.9%, 69.9% and 48.7%, 78.7%. They were poor at case-finding but good as screening instruments. For distress (any mental ill health) the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 72.8%, 80.6%; 75.7%, 66.3% and 65.7%, 71.3%, respectively. When screening for distress and anxiety the HADS-T was the optimal subscale. Conclusion: For the identification of depression, anxiety or distress in cancer settings, the HADS (including subscales) is not recommended as a case-finding instrument but it may, subject to concerns about its length, be a suitable addition to screening programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]