Dataset Information

Diagnostic Performance of the 4-Item Geriatric Depression Scale for Depression Screening in Older Patients with Cancer: The ELCAPA Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In older patients with cancer, depression is difficult to assess because of its heterogeneous clinical expression. The 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-4) is quick and easy to administer but has not been validated in this population. The present study was designed to test the diagnostic performance of the GDS-4 in a French cohort of older patients with cancer before treatment.

Materials and methods

Our cross-sectional analysis of data from the Elderly Cancer Patient cohort covered all patients with cancer aged ≥70 years and referred for geriatric assessment at two centers in France between 2007 and 2018. The GDS-4's psychometric properties were evaluated against three different measures of depression: the geriatrician's clinical diagnosis (based on a semistructured interview), the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and a cluster analysis. The scale's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated.

Results

In a sample of 2,293 patients (median age, 81 years; women, 46%), the GDS-4's sensitivity and specificity for detecting physician-diagnosed depression were, respectively, 90% and 89%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 8.2 and 0.11, and the AUROC was 92%. When considering the subset of patients with data on all measures of depression, the sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, ≥90% and ≥72%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were, respectively, ≥3.4 and ≤ 0.11, and the AUROC was ≥91%.

Conclusion

The GDS-4 appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer.

Implications for practice

Considering the overlap between symptoms of cancer and symptoms of depression, depression is particularly difficult to assess in older geriatric oncology and is associated with poor outcomes; there is a need for a routine psychological screening. Self-report instruments like the 4-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale appears to be a clinically relevant, easy-to-use tool for routine depression screening in older patients with cancer. Asking four questions might enable physicians to screen older patients with cancer for depression and then guide them toward further clinical evaluation and appropriate care if required.

SUBMITTER: Lafont C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.Prospero registration numberCRD42018104329.

Project description:BackgroundA multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended in older cancer patients to inventory health problems and tailor treatment decisions accordingly but requires considerable time and human resources. The G8 is among the most sensitive screening tools for selecting patients warranting a full GA but has limited specificity. We sought to develop and validate an optimized version of the G8.Patients and methodsWe used a prospective cohort of cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years referred to geriatricians for GA (2007-2012: n = 729 [training set]; 2012-2014: n = 414 [validation set]). Abnormal GA was defined as at least one impaired domain across seven validated tests. Multiple correspondence analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and bootstrapped internal validation were performed sequentially.ResultsThe final model included six independent predictors for abnormal GA: weight loss, cognition/mood, performance status, self-rated health status, polypharmacy (≥ 6 medications per day), and history of heart failure/coronary heart disease. For the original G8, sensitivity was 87.2% (95% confidence interval, 84.3-89.7), specificity 57.7% (47.3-67.7), and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 86.5% (83.5-89.6). The modified G8 had corresponding values of 89.2% (86.5-91.5), 79.0% (69.4-86.6), and 91.6% (89.3; 93.9), with higher AUROC values for all tumor sites and stable properties on the validation set.ConclusionA modified G8 screening tool exhibited better diagnostic performance with greater uniformity across cancer sites and required only six items. If these features are confirmed in other settings, the modified tool may facilitate selection for a full GA in older patients with cancer.Implications for practiceSeveral screening tools have been developed to identify older patients with cancer likely to benefit from a complete geriatric assessment, but none combines appropriate sensitivity and specificity. Based on a large prospective cohort study, an optimized G8 tool was developed, combining a systematic statistical approach with expert judgment to ensure optimal discriminative power and clinical relevance. The improved screening tool achieves high sensitivity, high specificity, better homogeneity across cancer types, and greater parsimony with only six items needed, facilitating selection for a full geriatric assessment.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is prevalent but poorly recognized in the Emergency Department (ED). We aimed to identify the frequency of unrecognized geriatric depression and its possible determinants in the ED using the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS). We also aimed to explore the performance of the shorter, five-item GDS as compared to the 15-item GDS.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of the ED patients ≥ 60 years. The previously validated Nepali version of GDS-15 screened the sample into "no", "mild-moderate" and "severe" depression using cutoff values of 4/5, and 8/9 respectively. Demographic and socioeconomic factors, comorbidities and health seeking behaviors were studied and the relation was assessed with binary (Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test) and multinomial regression analysis. The performance of GDS-5 was compared with the GDS-15 as standard. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to investigate reliability. Validity was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, Spearman's correlation, receiver operating characteristic curve, and kappa coefficient.ResultsTwo hundred eighty patients were enrolled with an overall prevalence of unrecognized depression of 45.7% [104 (81.3%) mild-moderate depression, and 24 (18.8%) severe depression]. The mean age of the sample was 71.36 with female predominance (61%), and 82.5% were illiterate. In the binary analysis, those who had more pain, visited the ED more often, had musculoskeletal diseases and sleep problems, mobility problems, visited local healers previously, and who reported self-perceived "heart and mind" disease showed statistically significant differences among the three categories. In multinomial regression analysis, visits to local healers, sleep problems and frequency of pain were significantly related to depression. The sensitivity, specificity, area under curve and Spearman's correlation of GDS-5 were 75.8%, 96%, 0.919, and 0.827 respectively. Cronbach's alpha for GDS-5 was low (0.416), therefore a new version was proposed which improved the sensitivity to 90.6% and Cronbach's alpha to 0.623.ConclusionsUnrecognized geriatric depression was highly prevalent which urges the need for ED-based interventions for screening and referral. The proposed brief GDS-5 correlated well with the GDS-15 with better validity and internal reliability and offers a more expeditious form of screening for geriatric depression in emergency settings in Nepal.

Project description:BackgroundThe Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a widely used instrument to assess depression in older adults. The short GDS versions that have four (GDS-4) and five items (GDS-5) represent alternatives for depression screening in limited-resource settings. However, their accuracy remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of the GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions for depression screening in older adults.MethodsUntil May 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar; for studies that have assessed the sensitivity and specificity of GDS-4 and GDS-5 for depression screening in older adults. We conducted meta-analyses of the sensitivity and specificity of those studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) as reference standard. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) at each reported common cut-off. For the overall meta-analyses, we evaluated each GDS-4 version or GDS-5 version separately by each cut-off, and for investigations of heterogeneity, we assessed altogether across similar GDS versions by each cut-off. Also, we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included and meta-analyzed, assessing eleven different GDS versions. The number of participants included was 5048. When including all versions together, at a cut-off 2, GDS-4 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.82) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.68-0.81); while GDS-5 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (0.80-0.90) and a pooled specificity of 0.75 (0.69-0.81). We found results for more than one GDS-4 version at cut-off points 1, 2, and 3; and for more than one GDS-5 version at cut-off points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mostly, significant subgroup differences at different test thresholds across versions were found. The accuracy of the different GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions showed a high heterogeneity. There was high risk of bias in the index test domain. Also, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for most of the GDS versions.ConclusionsWe found several GDS-4 and GDS-5 versions that showed great heterogeneity in estimates of sensitivity and specificity, mostly with a low or very low certainty of the evidence. Altogether, our results indicate the need for more well-designed studies that compare different GDS versions.

Project description:BackgroundThe 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) shows good performance in detecting depression among older persons, but its applicability has not been well studied in non-Western oldest-old adults and centenarians. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric property of the GDS-15 and a simplified version among a large representative longevous population in China.MethodsA total of 1624 individuals (786 oldest-old persons aged from 80 to 99 years; 838 centenarians aged 100+ years) participated in this study. Home interviews with structured questionnaires were conducted to collect sociodemographic data. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Chinese GDS-15 version. We implemented mixed methods for the psychometric evaluation of the GDS-15. Cronbach's α coefficient and item-total correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the internal consistency. A standard expert consultation was conducted to test the content validity of each item. Multiple factor analyses were used to explore the optimal factor structure and measurement invariance.ResultsThe α coefficient of the GDS-15 was 0.745, while two items impaired the overall consistency reliability. Nineteen experts rated the applicability for each item and provided removal suggestion. Five items with less validity were removed, and a simplified 10-item GDS model with three-factor structure was proposed as an optimal solution. The GDS-10 model showed factorial equivalence across age, sex, residence, and education in multi-group confirmatory factor analyses.ConclusionsThe original GDS-15 has acceptable internal reliability, known-group validity, and concurrent validity among Chinese community-dwelling oldest-old and centenarians; however we provided preliminary evidence indicating that individual items related to somatic function or social activities may not be applicable for this population. The modified GDS-10 can be proposed as a potentially more practical and comprehensible instrument for depression screening.