Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Depression is the most common psychiatric disorder in long-term dialysis patients and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. An efficient and valid method of diagnosing depression might facilitate recognition and treatment. We sought to validate 2 depression assessment tools, the 21-question Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), in a dialysis population. Methods We surveyed patients who had received dialysis for at least 90 days in Portland, OR. We excluded patients with dementia, delirium, or a history of major psychiatric disorders other than depression. The Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a gold-standard measure for depression, was administered by trained psychologists within 2 weeks of the BDI and PHQ-9. Results Of 62 enrolled subjects, 16 were diagnosed with a depressive disorder, including 12 patients (19%) with major depression, 3 patients with dysthymia, and 1 patient with minor depression. Optimal BDI and PHQ-9 cutoff values for depressive disorders combined was 16 or greater and 10 or greater, respectively. Sensitivities were 91% and 92%, specificities were 86% and 92%, positive predictive values were 59% and 71%, and negative predictive values were both 98%, with kappa values of 0.65 and 0.75, respectively. The difference between the 2 receiver operating characteristic curves was not statistically significant (P > 0.9). Conclusion Our results validate the PHQ-9 and revalidate the BDI against a gold-standard measure for depressive disorders in the dialysis population. Both tools performed equally well. Because depression is prevalent, readily diagnosed, and associated with poor outcomes, screening by means of short and valid measurement tools may lead to better diagnosis and treatment of this modifiable risk factor. This may lead to improved clinical outcomes in dialysis patients.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Watnick, S., Wang, P. L., Demadura, T., & Ganzini, L. (2005). Validation of 2 depression screening tools in dialysis patients. American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.006

Vancouver

Watnick S, Wang PL, Demadura T, Ganzini L. Validation of 2 depression screening tools in dialysis patients. American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2005. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.006. PMID: 16253733.

BibTeX

@article{watnick2005-16253733,
  author  = {Watnick, S. and Wang, P. L. and Demadura, T. and Ganzini, L.},
  title   = {{Validation of 2 depression screening tools in dialysis patients}},
  journal = {American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation},
  year    = {2005},
  doi     = {10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.006},
  pmid    = {16253733},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.08.006}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study validated the Beck Depression Inventory and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as depression screening tools in 62 dialysis patients, excluding those with dementia. It is about diagnosing depression in dialysis patients and does not address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 49/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 6 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. Total 49 of 100.49 of 100 points earned51 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 American Journal of Kidney Diseases: journal h-index 293 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 12 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 6 / 7 Cited 325 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 14.1 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 10.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 41 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author Linda K. Ganzini: h-index 51 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Oregon Health & Science University: institution h-index 1,025 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16253733)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total 49 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Risk factors

Also in Risk factors

356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →