ArticleGeneral psychiatry2025
Quantitative scale validation of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale in the treatment of Chinese patients with major depressive disorder.
Article in General psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03294525 (Clinical Psychopharmacology Division), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Psychopharmacology Division
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The patient-reported Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) has been adapted into Chinese, so there is a need to evaluate its measurement properties in a Chinese population. Aims: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the DARS among Chinese individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) and its treatment sensitivity in a prospective clinical study. Methods: Data were from a multicentre, prospective clinical study (NCT03294525), which recruited both patients with MDD, who were followed for 8 weeks, and healthy controls (HCs), assessed at baseline only. The analysis included confirmatory factor analysis, validity and sensitivity to change. Results: Patients' mean (standard deviation (SD)) age was 34.8 (11.0) years, with 68.7% being female. 75.2% of patients with MDD had melancholic features, followed by 63.8% with anxious distress. Patients had experienced MDD for a mean (SD) of 9.2 (18) months. DARS scores covered the full range of severity with no major floor or ceiling effects. Confirmatory factor analysis showed adequate fit statistics (comparative fit index 0.976, goodness-of-fit index 0.935 and root mean square error of approximation 0.055). Convergent validity with anhedonia-related measures was confirmed. While the correlation between the DARS and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was not strong (r=0.31, baseline), the DARS was found to differentiate between levels of depression. Greater improvements in DARS scores were seen with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression responder group (effect size 1.16) compared with the non-responder group (effect size 0.46). Conclusions: This study comprehensively evaluated the measurement properties of the DARS using a Chinese population with MDD. Overall, the Chinese version of DARS demonstrates good psychometric properties and has been found to be responsive to change during antidepressant treatment. The DARS is a suitable scale for assessing patient-reported anhedonia in future clinical trials.
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.