Back to Search Start Over

Accuracy of the PHQ-2 Alone and in Combination With the PHQ-9 for Screening to Detect Major Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Authors :
Leila Gholizadeh
Lai Fong Chan
Alasdair G Rooney
Terence J. Quinn
Pim Cuijpers
Charles H. Bombardier
Brian J. Hall
Iná S. Santos
Eliana Brehaut
Kerrie Clover
Laura Navarrete
Zelalem Negeri
Dagmar Amtmann
Tiago N. Munhoz
Dean McMillan
Stephanie L. Pugh
Nazanin Saadat
Henk van Weert
Thach Duc Tran
Crick Lund
John P. A. Ioannidis
Emily E. Haroz
Catherine G. Greeno
Parash Mani Bhandari
Sally Field
Brandon A. Kohrt
Brett D. Thombs
Juwita Shaaban
Martin Härter
Lynne I. Wagner
Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis
Lorna Gibson
Mohammad E. Khamseh
Marcos Hortes Nisihara Chagas
Hong Jin Jeon
Bernd Löwe
Crisanto Diez-Quevedo
Femke Lamers
Dixon Chibanda
Khalida Ismail
Dipika Neupane
Janneke M. de Man-van Ginkel
Sonia Regina Loureiro
Anna Beraldi
Shen-Ing Liu
Lena Spangenberg
Liisa Hantsoo
Lorie A. Kloda
Miranda Schram
Juliana C.N. Chan
Andrea Benedetti
Brian W. Pence
Nathalie Jette
Charles N. Bernstein
Lesley Stafford
Liat Ayalon
Ruth Ann Marrie
Adam Simning
Roy C. Ziegelstein
Hamid Reza Baradaran
Peter Butterworth
Bruce Arroll
Karen Wynter
Yin Wu
Gregory Carter
Valéria Lino
Ulrich Hegerl
Yunxin Kwan
Mahrukh Imran
Qing Zhi Zeng
Sebastian Köhler
Richard Swartz
Vikram Patel
Abbey C. Sidebottom
Petra Hampel
Jennifer White
Marleine Azar
Manote Lotrakul
Ryna Imma Buji
Svenja Roch
Mitsuhiko Yamada
Rushina Cholera
Danielle B. Rice
Bizu Gelaye
Liying Che
Ankur Krishnan
Sherina Mohd Sidik
Emily Garman
Flávia de Lima Osório
Arvin Bhana
Anthony McGuire
Simone Honikman
Kim M. Kiely
Kirsty Winkley
Keiko Suzuki
Maria Asunción Lara
Kumiko Muramatsu
Felix Fischer
Sharon C. Sung
Simon Gilbody
Angelo Picardi
Marie Hudson
Holly Levin-Aspenson
Felicity Goodyear-Smith
Brian Marx
Yeates Conwell
Daniel Fung
Alexander W. Levis
Jesse R. Fann
Pei Lin Lynnette Tan
Jane Fisher
Thomas Hyphantis
Chen He
Eric P. Green
Jaime Delgadillo
Laura Marsh
Eileen H. Shinn
Ying Sun
Brooke Levis
Alyna Turner
Thandi van Heyningen
Ian Shrier
Jill Boruff
Dickens Akena
Yuying Zhang
Katrin Reuter
Stevan E. Hobfoll
Ainsley Moore
Juliet Nakku
Nagendra P. Luitel
Martin Taylor-Rowan
Sujit D Rathod
Scott B. Patten
Kira E. Riehm
Elmars Rancans
Inge Petersen
Heather Rowe
JianLi Wang
Masatoshi Inagaki
Federico M. Daray
Leanne Hides
Aaron Conway
Philippe Persoons
Source :
JAMA, 2020, ' Accuracy of the PHQ-2 Alone and in Combination With the PHQ-9 for Screening to Detect Major Depression : Systematic Review and Meta-analysis ', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 323, no. 22, pp. 2290 . https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6504
Publication Year :
2020
Publisher :
American Medical Association, 2020.

Abstract

Importance The Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-administered instrument used for detecting depression and assessing severity of depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) consists of the first 2 items of the PHQ-9 (which assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia) and can be used as a first step to identify patients for evaluation with the full PHQ-9. Objective To estimate PHQ-2 accuracy alone and combined with the PHQ-9 for detecting major depression. Data sources MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-May 2018). Study selection Eligible data sets compared PHQ-2 scores with major depression diagnoses from a validated diagnostic interview. Data extraction and synthesis Individual participant data were synthesized with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 alone among studies using semistructured, fully structured, or Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnostic interviews separately and in combination with the PHQ-9 vs the PHQ-9 alone for studies that used semistructured interviews. The PHQ-2 score ranges from 0 to 6, and the PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27. Results Individual participant data were obtained from 100 of 136 eligible studies (44 318 participants; 4572 with major depression [10%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [17] years; 59% female). Among studies that used semistructured interviews, PHQ-2 sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for cutoff scores of 2 or greater and 0.72 (0.67-0.77) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) for cutoff scores of 3 or greater. Sensitivity was significantly greater for semistructured vs fully structured interviews. Specificity was not significantly different across the types of interviews. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (0.86-0.89) for semistructured interviews, 0.82 (0.81-0.84) for fully structured interviews, and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) for the MINI. There were no significant subgroup differences. For semistructured interviews, sensitivity for PHQ-2 scores of 2 or greater followed by PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater (0.82 [0.76-0.86]) was not significantly different than PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater alone (0.86 [0.80-0.90]); specificity for the combination was significantly but minimally higher (0.87 [0.84-0.89] vs 0.85 [0.82-0.87]). The area under the curve was 0.90 (0.89-0.91). The combination was estimated to reduce the number of participants needing to complete the full PHQ-9 by 57% (56%-58%). Conclusions and relevance In an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that compared PHQ scores with major depression diagnoses, the combination of PHQ-2 (with cutoff ≥2) followed by PHQ-9 (with cutoff ≥10) had similar sensitivity but higher specificity compared with PHQ-9 cutoff scores of 10 or greater alone. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and research value of this combined approach to screening.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
JAMA, 2020, ' Accuracy of the PHQ-2 Alone and in Combination With the PHQ-9 for Screening to Detect Major Depression : Systematic Review and Meta-analysis ', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 323, no. 22, pp. 2290 . https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6504
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....36807b2e00d8941bb6182d836f17ff1e
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6504