Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in neurologic populations
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background Because of symptom overlap, there is uncertainty about the validity of depression rating scales in neurologic populations. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for detecting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual–defined major depressive episodes in people with neurologic conditions.
Methods Participants were recruited from outpatient clinics for multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, migraine, Parkinson disease, and stroke for this cross-sectional study. Participants were administered a questionnaire (this included the PHQ-9), chart review, and a follow-up telephone interview. The Structured Clinical Interview for Depression was used as the reference standard for psychiatric diagnoses. The performance of PHQ-9 was analyzed using sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and receiver operator curve analysis.
Results All neurologic subpopulations had a specificity greater than 78% and sensitivity greater than 79% at a cut-point of 10. Using a random-effects model, the I-squared value was 13.7%, and Tau2 was 0.05, showing homogeneity across the neurologic subpopulations. The pooled DOR was 25.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9–42.8). Meta-analytic analysis found that for sensitivity, the pooled estimate was 90% (95% CI 81–97), and for specificity, it was 85% (95% CI 79–90).
Conclusions Despite theoretical concerns about its validity, the PHQ-9 performed well at its standard cut-point of 10. Consistent with the literature, being able to use a validated, brief tool that is available publicly should improve case finding of depression in neurologic populations. When considering clinical practicality along with the findings of this analyzed, this study confirmed that the PHQ-9 is valid in a general outpatient neurologic population.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
Editorial, page 186
- Received September 17, 2018.
- Accepted August 1, 2019.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.cp.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.