↓ Skip to main content

Hamilton depression rating scale and montgomery–asberg depression rating scale in depressed and bipolar I patients: psychometric properties in a Brazilian sample

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Hamilton depression rating scale and montgomery–asberg depression rating scale in depressed and bipolar I patients: psychometric properties in a Brazilian sample
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-015-0235-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Munhoz Carneiro, Fernando Fernandes, Ricardo Alberto Moreno

Abstract

The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) are used worldwide and considered standard scales for evaluating depressive symptoms. This paper aims to investigate the psychometric proprieties (reliability and validity) of these scales in a Brazilian sample, and to compare responses in bipolar and unipolar patients. The sample comprised 91 patients with either bipolar I or major depressive disorder from a psychiatric institute at São Paulo, Brazil. Participants were recruited and treated by clinicians through the Structured Interview for DSM-IV criteria, and had previously been interviewed by a trained, blind tester. Both scales indicated good reliability properties; however, the MADRS reliability statistics were higher than those of the HAM-D for detecting initial symptoms of unipolar depression. Correlation between the tests was moderate. Despite demonstrating adequate validity, neither test achieved the levels of sensitivity and specificity required for identification of a cutoff score to differentiate bipolar I and unipolar patients. Both scales demonstrate adequate reliability and validity for assessing depressive symptoms in the Brazilian sample, and are good options to complement psychiatric diagnosis, but are not appropriate for distinguishing between the two affective disorder types.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 25%
Psychology 19 13%
Neuroscience 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,807,084
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,223
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,501
of 263,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#11
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.