PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mark Zimmerman

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Zimmerman.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Diagnosing major depressive disorder VI: performance of an objective test as a diagnostic criterion.

Considerable research has evaluated biological and psychological tests for various psychiatric disorders; however, few objective tests are included in DSM-IV as diagnostic criteria. It was recently suggested that existing tests are insufficiently accurate to be included as diagnostic criteria. While it is true that there are limitations in the sensitivity and/or specificity of such tests, this should not rule them out as effective diagnostic criteria. Studies examining the diagnostic efficiency of the DSM criteria sets demonstrate that the individual criteria vary in their sensitivity and specificity. In the present article, we suggest that the same standard should be applied to the evaluation of objective tests. That is, we suggest changing the perspective used to evaluate the performance of biological and psychological measures from the traditional one examining them as diagnostic tests to one in which these measures are evaluated as diagnostic criteria. To our knowledge, no previous investigators have compared the psychometric performance of an objective test to the psychometric performance of the DSM-IV symptom criteria. The recent report from the committee to develop a research agenda for the initial planning phase for DSM-V discussed the use of self-report symptom scales as possible diagnostic criteria in nonpsychiatric settings. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we examined the performance of a self-report depression questionnaire as a diagnostic criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD). We compared the performance of the Diagnostic Inventory for Depression to the performance of the DSM-IV MDD symptom criteria in 1138 psychiatric outpatients. The results indicated that the diagnostic efficiency of the Diagnostic Inventory for Depression was similar to the loss of interest or pleasure criterion, and superior to all of the remaining DSM-IV MDD symptom criteria except low mood. We discuss issues related to the possible use of a self-administered depression symptom scale as a diagnostic criterion.

Affective Symptoms↗
PubMed2006

Diagnosing major depressive disorder VII: family history as a diagnostic criterion.

Eliciting information about a patient's family history is a component of a standard diagnostic evaluation. Since depression runs in families, a question arises as to whether family history information should be considered when diagnosing depression. The text of DSM-IV indicates that a family history of a mood disorder should sometimes be considered when trying to distinguish between major depressive disorder and other conditions such as catatonic schizophrenia. The questions posed herein are how well family history of depression performs as a diagnostic criterion, and how its performance compares with the DSM-IV symptom criteria. One thousand eight hundred psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with a semistructured diagnostic interview as part of a research assessment infrastructure that has been embedded in the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry outpatient practice. Family history diagnoses were based on information provided by the patient. The interview followed the guide provided in the Family History Research Diagnostic Criteria. We constructed a continuum of family history morbidity based on the number of first-degree family members with a history of depression and whether the family member was treated for their depression. Thus, we determined the presence or absence of the family history diagnostic criterion in different ways. Family history information was collected on 9763 first-degree relatives of 1776 patients. The sensitivity of the family history criterion was lower than each of the symptoms. Based on the broadest definition of the family history variable, the specificity was also lower than all other symptoms. Based on the narrowest definition (two or more family members who were treated for depression), the specificity was higher than all of the symptom criteria though sensitivity dropped to 15%. Overall, as a diagnostic criterion, a family history of depression did not perform as well as the DSM-IV symptom criteria. Consistent with the familial nature of depression, the family history variable performed better as a diagnostic criterion when considering diagnosis from a lifetime, rather than a current, perspective. This has implications for the future consideration of genetic markers as diagnostic criteria.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Diagnosing major depressive disorder VIII: are some symptoms better than others?

The present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project examined whether symptoms that are not part of the DSM-IV definition of major depressive disorder (MDD) are better at discriminating depressed from nondepressed patients than the current criteria. Symptoms assessed included diminished drive, helplessness, hopelessness, nonreactive mood, psychic anxiety, somatic anxiety, subjective anger, and overtly expressed anger. A total of 1538 psychiatric outpatients were administered a semistructured diagnostic interview. We inquired about all of the symptoms of depression for all patients. Diminished drive exhibited stronger performance in differentiating MDD from non-MDD relative to all DSM-IV criteria except depressed mood, reduced interest/pleasure, and impaired concentration/indecisiveness. A compound criterion combining diminished drive with loss of energy was endorsed by nearly all MDD patients. Helplessness and hopelessness, when combined into a single criterion, performed more strongly than some of the DSM-IV criteria. Lack of reactivity, anxiety, and anger symptoms failed to differentiate more strongly than current DSM-IV criteria. The implications of these results for revising the diagnostic criteria for major depression are discussed.

Affective Symptoms↗
PubMed2006

Diagnosing major depressive disorder IX: are patients who deny low mood a distinct subgroup?

A dysphoric mood is not required for the diagnosis of DSM-IV major depressive disorder. Individuals who deny depression, sadness, or feeling blue may nonetheless be diagnosed with major depressive disorder if they have lost interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, of their usual activities, and experienced at least four other symptoms of depression. The underlying assumption is that depressed patients without low mood are no different than depressed patients who report dysphoric mood. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we examined the validity of this assumption. We compared the demographic, family history, and clinical characteristics of patients who met the DSM-IV criteria for a current major depressive episode who did (N = 839) and did not (N = 63) report low mood. Patients without depressed mood were significantly younger, and their current episodes were briefer, less severe, and associated with less suicidality and less psychosocial impairment. The results thus do not support DSM-IV's implicit assumption of no difference between depressed patients who do and do not report low mood. The alternative ways this might be addressed in future editions of the DSM are discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Diagnosing major depressive disorder X: can the utility of the DSM-IV symptom criteria be improved?

There are two practical problems with the DSM-IV symptom criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD)--they are somewhat lengthy and therefore difficult to remember, and there are difficulties in applying some of the criteria in patients with comorbid medical illnesses because of symptom nonspecificity. Therefore, in the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we attempted to develop a briefer definition of major depression that is composed entirely of mood and cognitive symptoms. Our goal was to develop an alternative set of diagnostic criteria for major depression that did not include somatic symptoms but would nonetheless demonstrate a high level of concordance with the current DSM-IV definition. We examined several alternative definitions of MDD. After eliminating the somatic criteria from the DSM-IV MDD criteria and adding the symptom "reduced drive," there was a very high level of concordance with DSM-IV classification (95%). This new definition thus offers two advantages over the current DSM-IV definition--it is briefer and it is free of somatic symptoms, thereby making it easier to apply with medically ill patients. We discuss using improvement in the clinical utility, rather than validity of diagnostic criteria, as the basis for making revisions in the nomenclature.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2006

How should remission from depression be defined? The depressed patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Although experts in the treatment of depression have suggested that achieving remission is the primary goal of treatment, questions remain about how remission should be defined. In antidepressant efficacy trials, remission is defined according to scores on symptom severity scales. Normalization of functioning is often mentioned as an important component of remission, although it is not used to identify patients with remission in treatment studies. The authors' goal was to determine what depressed patients consider important in defining remission from depression. METHOD: A brief questionnaire was distributed to 535 psychiatric outpatients who were being treated for DSM-IV major depressive episode. They were asked to rate the importance of 16 statements in determining whether depression is in remission. RESULTS: The three items most frequently judged to be very important in determining remission were the presence of features of positive mental health such as optimism and self-confidence; a return to one's usual, normal self; and a return to usual level of functioning. The patients endorsed a statement about absence of symptoms with nearly similar frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aspire to a range of outcomes from the treatment of their depression.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Developing brief scales for use in clinical practice: the reliability and validity of single-item self-report measures of depression symptom severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: Reliable, valid, user-friendly measurement is necessary to successfully implement an outcomes evaluation program in clinical practice. Self-report questionnaires, which generally correlate highly with clinician ratings, are a cost-effective assessment option. However, even self-administered questionnaires can be burdensome to patients because many are lengthy. Consequently, we developed and determined the reliability and validity of ultra-brief, single-item assessments of 3 domains important to consider when treating depressed patients: symptom severity, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. METHOD: In the first study (conducted June 1997 to March 2002), 1278 psychiatric outpatients with various DSM-IV diagnoses completed single-item assessments of psychosocial functioning and quality of life as well as more detailed measures of these constructs. In the second study (conducted August 2003 to July 2004), 562 psychiatric outpatients who were in ongoing treatment for a DSM-IV major depressive episode completed a depression symptom scale and a measure of global severity of depression. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the psychosocial functioning and quality-of-life items was high. The single-item measures of symptom severity, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life were significantly correlated with the total scores and individual item scores of longer measures of the same constructs (p < .001). The single-item measures significantly discriminated between depressed patients in full remission, in partial remission, and in a current depressive episode (p < .001). CONCLUSION: These studies provide evidence of the reliability and validity of single-item measures of symptom severity, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Very brief measures, such as the ones described in the present report, are not burdensome for patients to complete and can be easily incorporated into a busy clinical practice in order to collect data on treatment effectiveness.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2005

Standardized clinical outcome rating scale for depression for use in clinical practice.

The integration of research into clinical practice to conduct effectiveness studies faces multiple obstacles. One obstacle is the burden of completing research measures of outcome. A simple, reliable, and valid measure that could be rated at every visit, incorporated into a clinician's progress note, and reflect the DSM-IV definition of a major depressive episode (including partial and full remission from the episode) would enhance the ability to conduct effectiveness research. The goal of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity of such a measure. Three hundred and three psychiatric outpatients who were being treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were rated on the Standardized Clinical Outcome Rating for Depression (SCOR-D), 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Global Assessment of Functioning. We examined the correlation between the SCOR-D and the other measures, and conducted an analyses of variance to compare mean values on these measures for each rating point on the SCOR-D. The inter-rater reliability of the SCOR-D dimensional ratings and categorical determination of remission were high. The SCOR-D was highly correlated with the other scales, and there were significant differences on the other measures of depression severity between each adjacent rating level of the SCOR-D. The SCOR-D is a brief standardized outcome measure linked to the DSM-IV approach toward defining remission that can be incorporated into routine clinical practice without adding undue burden to the treating clinician with some evidence of reliability and validity. This measure could make it more feasible to conduct effectiveness studies in clinical practice.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Comorbid psychiatric disorders in depressed outpatients: demographic and clinical features.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the clinical and sociodemographic features associated with various degrees of concurrent comorbidity in adult outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Outpatients enrolled in the STAR*D trial completed the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ). An a priori 90% specificity threshold was set for PDSQ responses to ascertain the presence of 11 different concurrent DSM-IV Axis I disorders. RESULTS: Of 1376 outpatients, 38.2% had no concurrent comorbidities, while 25.6% suffered one, 16.1% suffered two, and 20.2% suffered three or more comorbid conditions. Altogether, 29.3% met threshold for social anxiety disorder, 20.8% for generalized anxiety disorder, 18.8% for posttraumatic stress disorder, 12.4% for bulimia, 11.9% for alcohol abuse/dependence, 13.4% for obsessive-compulsive disorder, 11.1% for panic disorder, 9.4% for agoraphobia, 7.3% for drug abuse/dependence, 3.7% for hypochondriasis, and 2.2% for somatoform disorder. Those with more concurrent Axis I conditions had earlier ages at first onset of MDD, longer histories of MDD, greater depressive symptom severity, more general medical comorbidity (even though they were younger than those with fewer comorbid conditions), poorer physical and mental function, health perceptions, and life satisfaction; and were more likely to be seen in primary care settings. LIMITATIONS: Participants had to meet entry criteria for STAR*D. Ascertainment of comorbid conditions was not based on a structured interview. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent Axis I conditions (most often anxiety disorders) are very common with MDD. Greater numbers of concurrent comorbid conditions were associated with increased severity, morbidity, and chronicity of their MDD.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Elevated rates of psychosis among treatment-seeking Hispanic patients with major depression.

It is unknown whether rates of psychosis differ among depressed patients of various races and ethnic groups. In the present study, we sought to determine whether Hispanic patients with major depression who present for treatment are more likely to report psychotic symptoms than whites, even after controlling for multiple potential confounding factors. Fifteen hundred patients presenting to the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry's outpatient practice underwent standardized diagnostic evaluations. Rates of psychosis were compared among Hispanic patients diagnosed with a current major depressive disorder and a white control group closely matched on several key demographic and clinical variables. Comparison rates of psychosis were also made with other ethnic groups. Rates of psychosis were significantly higher in 22 Hispanic patients diagnosed with depression (27.3%) compared with a closely matched white control group (N = 44; 6.8%; chi = 5.2; df = 1; p = .02). Rates of psychosis were also significantly higher in Hispanics than in Portuguese patients, but not blacks, although the former cohort differed in several key demographic and clinical variables. The study suggests that Hispanic patients with major depression who present for treatment may be more likely than whites to report psychotic symptoms. It remains unclear whether these reports represent true psychosis or culturally influenced idioms of distress.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Is the cutoff to define remission on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression too high?

The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used measure of outcome in antidepressant efficacy trials. More than a decade ago, a consensus panel recommended that remission be defined on the 17-item version of the HRSD as a cutoff <or=7. This recommendation was accompanied by a call for research to validate this cutoff value; however, little research in this area has been performed since then. The goal of the present study was to compare the validity of different HRSD cutoffs for defining remission. Three hundred three depressed psychiatric outpatients were rated on the 17-item HRSD, the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, and the Standardized Clinical Outcome Rating for Depression, an index of DSM-IV remission status. We examined the sensitivity, specificity, and overall classification rate of the HRSD for identifying a broad and narrow interpretation of the DSM-IV definition of remission, and the association between the breadth of the definition of remission on the HRSD and self-report ratings of global psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Based on a narrow definition of DSM-IV remission, which requires an absence of clinically significant symptoms of depression, the optimal 17-item HRSD cutoff was <or=2. Compared with patients scoring 3 through 7 on the HRSD, those who scored 0 to 2 reported significantly less psychosocial impairment and better quality of life. Our results thus support the use of a lower cutoff on the HRSD than has been traditionally used to define remission.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: The largest clinical epidemiological surveys of personality disorders have been based on unstructured clinical evaluations. However, several recent studies have questioned the accuracy and thoroughness of clinical diagnostic interviews; consequently, clinical epidemiological studies, like community-based studies, should be based on standardized evaluations. The Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project is one of the largest clinical epidemiological studies to use semistructured interviews to assess a wide range of psychiatric disorders conducted in general clinical outpatient practice. In the present report, the authors examined the frequency of DSM-IV personality disorders in a patient group and the comorbidity among them. METHOD: Eight hundred fifty-nine psychiatric outpatients were interviewed with the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality upon presentation for treatment. RESULTS: Slightly less than one-third of the patients were diagnosed with one of the 10 official DSM-IV personality disorders (N=270, 31.4%). When the patients with personality disorder not otherwise specified were included, the rate of any personality disorder increased to almost half of the group (N=391, 45.5%). The majority of patients meeting criteria for one of the specific personality disorders were diagnosed with more than one. Avoidant, borderline, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder were the most frequent specific diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Personality disorders, as a group, are among the most frequent disorders treated by psychiatrists. They should be evaluated in all psychiatric patients because their presence can influence the course and treatment of the axis I disorder that patients typically identify as their chief complaint.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials: differences between depressed psychiatric outpatients who would or would not qualify for an efficacy trial.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years the generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials has been questioned. Central to the question of generalizability is whether there are differences in clinical, demographic, and psychosocial characteristics between patients who would qualify for an antidepressant efficacy trial and those who would not qualify. METHOD: The authors compared three groups: 123 depressed patients who would qualify for an antidepressant efficacy trial, 289 whose symptom severity was too mild to qualify for an antidepressant efficacy trial, and 187 who would be excluded because they were suicidal or had a comorbid anxiety or substance use disorder. RESULTS: Compared with patients who would qualify for an antidepressant efficacy trial, patients who would be excluded because of comorbidity or suicidality were a more chronically ill group with more previous episodes, greater psychosocial impairment, and more personality pathology. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support further caution in generalizing the results from antidepressant efficacy trials to clinical populations.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Is there a delay in the antidepressant effect? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: It has long been thought that there is a delay of several weeks before a true antidepressant effect occurs, although this theory has increasingly come into question. The goals of this meta-analysis were to determine whether significant drug-placebo separation occurs during the first 2 weeks of treatment and to ascertain whether the timing of response to antidepressant medication and placebo is distinct. DATA SOURCES: Seventy-six double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1981 and 2000, included in a recently published meta-analysis that evaluated placebo response rates in depressed outpatients, were reviewed. In addition, each issue of 6 psychiatric journals from January 1992 through December 2001 was reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Forty-seven studies that evaluated antidepressant medications with established efficacy, performed weekly or biweekly (every other week) evaluations, and presented the time course of improvement as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were included in our meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: The time course of improvement on active medication and placebo was nearly identical, as 60.2% and 61.6% of the improvement that occurred on active medication and placebo, respectively, took place during the first 2 weeks of treatment. Drug-placebo differences were not only present but were most pronounced during the first 2 weeks of treatment and diminished in a stepwise fashion thereafter. A series of subanalyses confirmed that this early drug-placebo separation was clinically observable and represented a true drug effect. CONCLUSION: These results challenge the notion that a delay exists before a true antidepressant effect occurs.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMed2005

Why isn't bupropion the most frequently prescribed antidepressant?

OBJECTIVE: Reviews of antidepressant medication efficacy suggest that all antidepressants are equally effective. Bupropion is less likely than other antidepressants to cause weight gain and sexual dysfunction, the 2 side effects that are of greatest concern to patients and that have the greatest impact on long-term compliance. If bupropion is as effective as other antidepressants, and it does not cause the side effects that are the most frequent causes of long-term noncompliance, then why isn't it the most frequently prescribed antidepressant medication? To understand psychiatrists' decision making at the time an antidepressant is chosen, we conducted the Rhode Island Factors Associated With Antidepressant Choice Survey (FAACS). METHOD: For 1137 DSM-IV-diagnosed depressed patients initiated on an antidepressant, the treating psychiatrist completed a 43-item questionnaire listing factors that might have influenced the choice of medication. The questionnaire was filled out immediately after the antidepressant was prescribed to treat a depressive disorder. This study was conducted from August 2001 to February 2002. RESULTS: Because the reasons for choosing a medication to augment an existing regimen might be different from those used in monotherapy, augmentation trials were excluded from the analysis, leaving a sample of 965 patients. Bupropion was rarely prescribed when the presence of comorbid anxiety disorders or symptoms reflecting central nervous system activation influenced antidepressant selection. When the desire to avoid side effects, especially sexual dysfunction and weight gain, were the basis of selection, then bupropion was significantly more often prescribed than other antidepressants (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is little evidence that patient factors predict differential medication response, psychiatrists are strongly inclined to base antidepressant selection on clinical profiles and avoid prescribing bupropion for depressed patients with high anxiety. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between psychiatrists' prescribing habits and the results of empirical study are discussed.

Adult↗