Conclusions : According to the published literature , the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 are superior to those of both the HAM-D17 and MADRS .
Background : In a study aim ed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression , the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAM-D6 ) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale ( HAM-D17 ) .
Since then , the HAM-D6 has been used in a wide range of clinical studies .
We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 in comparison with those of HAM-D17 and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) .
Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: a comparison of unidimensional subscales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression
In the efficacy evaluation of antidepressant treatments , the total score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAMD ) is still regarded as the ‘ gold st and ard ’ . We previously had shown that the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology ( IDS ) was more sensitive to detect depressive symptom changes than the HAMD17 ( Helmreich et al. 2011 ) . Furthermore , studies suggest that the unidimensional subscales of the HAMD , which capture the core depressive symptoms , outperform the full HAMD regarding the detection of antidepressant treatment effects . The aim of the present study was to compare several unidimensional subscales of the HAMD and the IDS regarding their sensitivity to changes in depression symptoms in a sample of patients with mild major , minor or subsyndromal depression ( MIND ) . Biweekly IDS-C28 and HAMD17 data from 287 patients of a 10-week r and omised , placebo-controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of sertraline and cognitive – behavioural group therapy in patients with MIND were converted to subscale scores and analysed during the antidepressant treatment course . We investigated sensitivity to depressive change for all scales from assessment -to- assessment , in relation to depression severity level and placebo – verum differences . The subscales performed similarly during the treatment course , with slight advantages for some subscales in detecting treatment effects depending on the treatment modality and on the items included . Most changes in depressive symptomatology were detected by the IDS short scale , but regarding the effect sizes , it performed worse than most subscales . Unidimensional subscales are a time- and cost-saving option in judging drug therapy outcomes , especially in antidepressant treatment efficacy studies . However , subscales do not cover all facets of depression ( e.g. atypical symptoms , sleep disturbances ) , which might be important for comprehensively underst and ing the nature of the disease depression . Therefore , the cost-to-benefit ratio must be carefully assessed in the decision for using unidimensional subscales
Conclusions : According to the published literature , the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 are superior to those of both the HAM-D17 and MADRS .
Background : In a study aim ed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression , the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAM-D6 ) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale ( HAM-D17 ) .
Since then , the HAM-D6 has been used in a wide range of clinical studies .
We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 in comparison with those of HAM-D17 and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) .