Dataset Information

Validity of retrospectively-reported depressive episodes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Depression and other psychopathology are often assessed retrospectively. Few studies have evaluated the validity of these reports by comparing prospectively-assessed symptoms to retrospective reports during the same time period.

Methods

This study utilized a subset of participants (n = 68) from the Oregon Adolescent Depression Project who completed at least one mailer assessment of depressive symptoms during a retrospectively-reported depressive episode. Participants completed up to seven mailer assessments of depression and suicidal ideation and diagnostic assessments that included retrospectively-reported depressive episodes that coincided with the mailer assessments.

Results

Multilevel linear models examined differences in depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation during and between retrospectively-reported depressive episodes. Results showed that individuals reported significantly higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation for retrospectively-reported depressive episodes compared to when they were not in depressive episodes. In addition, the average level of depressive symptoms endorsed during retrospectively-reported depressive episodes reached established clinical cut-offs.

Limitations

Although we were able to determine whether symptoms during retrospectively-reported depressive episodes approached clinical cut-offs, we were unable to examine whether symptoms met criteria for depressive episodes. Additionally, we could not examine whether episode severity related to recall ability, and other forms of psychopathology were not assessed.

Conclusion

These findings provide critical evidence for the validity of retrospectively-reported depressive episodes. Future research should examine whether these findings generalize across varying recall periods and retrospective assessments for other psychopathology.

SUBMITTER: Birk SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7575822 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Clinically, it is very difficult to distinguish between major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) in the period of depression. Increasing evidence shows that the insula plays an important role in depression. We aimed to compare the resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) of insular subregions in patients with MDD and BD in depressive episodes (BDD), who had never experienced manic or hypomanic episodes when they were scanned to identify biomarkers for the identification of two diseases. Methods: We recruited 21 BDD patients, 40 MDD patients and 70 healthy controls (HC). Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) was performed. BDD patients had never had manic or hypomanic episodes when they were scanned, and the diagnoses were determined by follow-up. We divided the insula into three parts including the ventral anterior insular cortex (v-AIN), dorsal anterior insular cortex (d-AIN), and posterior insula (PI). The insular-based rsFC was compared among the three groups, and an analysis of the correlation between the rsFC value and Hamilton depression and anxiety scales was carried out. Results: BDD and MDD patients demonstrated decreased rsFC from the v-AIN to the left superior/middle frontal gyrus compared with the HC group. Versus MDD and HC groups, BDD patients exhibited decreased rsFC from the v-AIN to the area in the left orbital frontal gyrus and left superior temporal gyrus (included temporal pole), from the PI to the right lateral postcentral gyrus and from all three insular subregions to the somatosensory and motor cortex. Meanwhile, a correlation between the rsFC value of the PI-right lateral postcentral gyrus and anxiety score was observed in patients. Conclusion: Our findings show BDD and MDD patients have similar decreases in insular connectivity in the dorsal lateral frontal regions, and BDD patients have specific decreased insular connectivity, especially in the somatosensory and motor cortex, which may be used as imaging evidence for clinical identification.

Project description:ObjectivesComposite diagnostic criteria alone are likely to create and introduce biases into diagnoses that subsequently have poor relationships with input symptoms. This study aims to understand the relationships between the diagnoses and the input symptoms, as well as the magnitudes of biases created by diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses of mental illnesses with large disease burdens (major depressive episodes, dysthymic disorder, and manic episodes).SettingsGeneral psychiatric care.ParticipantsWithout real-world data available to the public, 100 000 subjects were simulated and the input symptoms were assigned based on the assumed prevalence rates (0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7) and correlations between symptoms (0, 0.1, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9). The input symptoms were extracted from the diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were transformed into mathematical equations to demonstrate the sources of biases and convert the input symptoms into diagnoses.Primary and secondary outcomesThe relationships between the input symptoms and diagnoses were interpreted using forward stepwise linear regressions. Biases due to data censoring or categorisation introduced into the intermediate variables, and the three diagnoses were measured.ResultsThe prevalence rates of the diagnoses were lower than those of the input symptoms and proportional to the assumed prevalence rates and the correlations between the input symptoms. Certain input or bias variables consistently explained the diagnoses better than the others. Except for 0 correlations and 0.7 prevalence rates of the input symptoms for the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder, the input symptoms could not fully explain the diagnoses.ConclusionsThere are biases created due to composite diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses. The design of the diagnostic criteria determines the prevalence of the diagnoses and the relationships between the input symptoms, the diagnoses, and the biases. The importance of the input symptoms has been distorted largely by the diagnostic criteria.