ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
The utility of brief instruments for depression screening in dialysis patients.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mental health and kidney disease.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression is a frequent but often underdiagnosed comorbid disorder in dialysis patients. The Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II) is a reliable and valid instrument for depression screening but is relatively long for repeated use in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to compare the BDI-II with the shorter questionnaires Beck Depression Inventory-FastScreen (BDI-FS), the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS-D), the Mental Health (MH) scale of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and two items of the MH ('So down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up' and 'Downhearted and blue') to determine the most efficient instruments for screening depressive symptoms in dialysis patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving patients from 14 health centres undergoing in-centre haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. All patients completed the BDI-II, HADS-D and MH scale. The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for each brief instrument were assessed relative to BDI-II ≥16. Results: Of the 145 patients included in the study (mean age 62 years; 66% male), 24.8% had depressive symptoms (BDI ≥16). The cut-off points with the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value for BDI-FS were ≥3 (91.7% and 96.1%, respectively) and ≥4 (80.6% and 92.4%, respectively) and for the HADS-D these were ≥4 (91.7% and 95.8%, respectively) and ≥5 (83.3% and 92.6%, respectively). The cut-off points for the total MH and the two items (considered separately or together) resulted in lower sensitivity (<80%) and lower negative predictive values (<90%). Conclusions: Both the BDI-FS and HADS-D are adequate screening tools for depression in the dialysis population. As the BDI-FS is easier to complete and score and enables identification of patients at risk of suicide, it may be the best alternative to the BDI-II for depression screening in dialysis patients in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.