Statistics from Altmetric.com
A blinded comparison of the EBAS DEP with clinical diagnoses based on the Feighner criteria.
An old age home, a day clinic, and a psychiatric hospital in Mannheim, Germany.
71 participants who were ≥65 years of age.
Description of test and diagnostic standard
The EBAS DEP has 8 questions on depressive mood, worries, suicidal thoughts, and vegetative symptoms, and scores range from 0 (not depressed) to 8 (very depressed). The diagnostic standard was diagnoses made by a psychiatrist or psychiatric nurse who used the Feighner criteria and who were blind to EBAS DEP scores.
Main outcome measures
Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.
The table⇓ shows the results. The best cutoff point was 4/5 with a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 85%. When receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, the area under the EBAS DEP ROC curve was similar to that of the full 21 item version of the Brief Assessment Scale for Depression.
The German version of the Even Briefer Assessment Scale for Depression had high sensitivity and specificity for detecting depression in elderly patients.
There is no doubt that most depression in older people goes undetected and untreated.1 Patients and doctors seem to collude to avoid the stigma and resignation that the diagnosis brings. This happens even though a simple intervention (a pill) has been shown to be helpful for over one half of this group, and a range of talking therapies seem to be equally effective.2 One way of improving the detection of depression is by using screening questionnaires. Checklists are generally disliked by healthcare professionals and may be tiresome for older clients. Hence the interest in looking at the efficacy of brief scales (even though the briefest scale possible [BSP] “Are you feeling depressed?” has yet to be implemented universally). In fact, the 15 questions in the GDS15 are similar to the 8 questions in the EBAS DEP, raising the possibility of one day unifying them (although the ensuing acronym would be unbearably long). The main difference between the studies is the populations they examine. The GDS15 was studied in people ≥75 years of age who lived in the community as part of their legislated (in the UK) annual health checkups. The EBAS DEP was used in a smaller group of people who were ≥65 years of age in Germany and lived in an old people's home or hospital or attended a clinic. Each study looked at how different cutoff scores for the scales compared with a gold standard of clinical criteria for depression. There was the usual tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. If only 3 questions need to be answered “yes” to screen the patient as positive, then both scales are very sensitive (picking up all the small number of depressed patients in each study). The scales also identify a lot of “false-positives”, however, which is inevitable when the prevalence of a disorder is low. This may mean further unnecessary clinical interviews. No one knows whether those with false positive results may also benefit from further interventions. The take home message is that both scales are useful for screening elderly people. Every silver lining has a cloud, however. Once detected, depressed older people will need to be treated properly. Even with widely practicable treatments such as drugs, evidence exists that they are not always used well and that if quality is improved, so are outcomes.3
If the average geriatric psychiatrist covers the area of 50 general practitioners (GPs), Arthur et al's figures suggest that the GDS15 would screen 2100 people ≥75 years of age as positive, of whom 400 would be depressed. This would generate too much work for existing services. Perhaps this is one reason why GPs are not presently using depression scales in their annual screening of people who are ≥75 years of age.4
Source of funding: German Ministry of Research and Technology.
For correspondence: Dr S Weyerer, Psychogeriatric Research Unit, Central Institute of Mental Health, J5, D-68159 Mannheim, Germany. Fax +49 621 23429.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.