+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The Validity of the Different Versions of the Hamilton Depression Scale in Separating Remission Rates of Placebo and Antidepressants in Clinical Trials of Major Depression



The Validity of the Different Versions of the Hamilton Depression Scale in Separating Remission Rates of Placebo and Antidepressants in Clinical Trials of Major Depression



Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 36(5): 453-456



Our objective was to validate the different versions of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) both psychometrically (scalability) and clinically in discriminating antidepressants from placebo in terms of remission rates in an 8-week clinical trial in the acute treatment of major depression. The traditional HAM-D17 version was compared with the shorter HAM-D6 and the longer HAM-D21 or HAM-D24 in a fixed-dose placebo-controlled vortioxetine study. Clinical Global Impression of Severity scores were used to establish standardized cutoff scores for remission across each scale. Using these cutoff scores, we compared the ability of each scale to separate drug-placebo remission rates, evaluated by the number needed to treat for clinical evidence. The HAM-D6 was superior to HAM-D17 in separating drug-placebo remission rates at the end point, defined as number needed to treat of less than 10. More items in the longer HAM-D versions indicated smaller discriminating validity over placebo. The HAM-D6 indicated a dose effect on remission for vortioxetine in both moderate and severe major depression. The brief HAM-D6 was thus found superior to HAM-D17, HAM-D21, and HAM-D24 both in terms of scalability and in discriminating antidepressants from placebo.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059036753

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27525966

DOI: 10.1097/jcp.0000000000000557


Related references

Effects of reboxetine on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale factors from randomized, placebo-controlled trials in major depression. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 17(2): 45-51, 2002

Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials with mirtazapine using the core items of the Hamilton Depression Scale as evidence of a pure antidepressive effect in the short-term treatment of major depression. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 4(4): 337-345, 2001

Reliability and validity of the Hamilton Depression Inventory: A paper-and-pencil version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Clinical Interview. Psychological Assessment 7(4): 472-483, 1995

Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics 43(5): 386-393, 2002

Analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale factors from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine in geriatric major depression. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 8(4): 253-259, 1993

Effects of baseline depression severity on remission rates with duloxetine and placebo in anxious and nonanxious patients with major depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 31(5): 682-684, 2011

The validity of dysthymia to predict clinical depressive symptoms as measured by the Hamilton Depression Scale at the 5-year follow-up of patients with first episode depression. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 70(8): 563-566, 2016

The validity of Beck Depression Inventory and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression items in the assessment of depression among patients with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 28(1): 35-41, 2005

Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale, the Hamilton depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication analysis. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 19(3): 157-160, 2004

Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery?????sberg depression rating scale, the Hamilton depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication analysis. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 19(3): 157-160, 2004

Assessment of symptom change from improvement curves on the Hamilton depression scale in trials with antidepressants. Psychopharmacology 84(2): 276-281, 1984

Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 17(6): 281-285, 2002

What is not "Effective" in Mild to Moderate Depression: Antidepressants or the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression?. Cns Spectrums 16(4): 99, 2011

Clinical use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: is increased efficiency possible? A post hoc comparison of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Maier and Bech subscales, Clinical Global Impression, and Symptom Checklist-90 scores. Comprehensive Psychiatry 46(6): 417-427, 2005

Clinical Validation of the Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-6, and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-5: Results from the Clinical Research Center for Depression Study. Psychiatry Investigation 14(5): 568-576, 2017