↓ Skip to main content

The assessment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric validation studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The assessment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric validation studies
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0931-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Hind, Daphne Kaklamanou, Dan Beever, Rosie Webster, Ellen Lee, Michael Barkham, Cindy Cooper

Abstract

The prevalence of depression in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) is high; however, symptoms common to both conditions makes measurement difficult. There is no high quality overview of validation studies to guide the choice of depression inventory for this population. A systematic review of studies validating the use of generic depression inventories in people with MS was conducted using MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Studies validating the use of depression inventories in PwMS and published in English were included; validation studies of tests for cognitive function and general mental health were excluded. Eligible studies were then quality assessed using the COSMIN checklist and findings synthesised narratively by instrument and validity domain. Twenty-one studies (N = 5,991 PwMS) evaluating 12 instruments were included in the review. Risk of bias varied greatly between instrument and validity domain. The review of validation studies was constrained by poor quality reporting and outcome reporting bias. Well-conducted evaluations of some instruments are unavailable for some validity domains. This systematic review provides an evidence base for trade-offs in the selection of an instrument for assessing self-reported symptoms of depression in research or clinical practice involving people with MS. We make detailed and specific recommendations for where further research is needed. PROSPERO CRD42014010597.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 27 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Mathematics 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 32 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,705,030
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,806
of 4,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,185
of 371,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#33
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.