title: The evaluation of depression in inpatients with HIV disease.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this paper is: to compare the utility of four approaches to the diagnosis of depression in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease; to examine the utility of four rating scales to assess the presence and severity of depression; and to devise a set of substitutive criteria that would be appropriate in patients with HIV disease.
  
  
  METHODS
  A group of inpatients was assessed using standard clinical interview. Patients found to have major depression using DSM-III-R (aetiological) criteria were assessed using inclusive, substitutive and exclusive criteria for the diagnosis of depression. Severity was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D). A group of control patients were matched for age and severity of HIV illness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventeen patients met DSM-III-R (aetiological criteria) for major depression. All were male; they had a mean age of 40.6 years and one-third had acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Using alternative approaches to the diagnosis of depression, up to five additional 'depressed' patients were identified ('false positives'). All 17 patients meeting the DSM-III-R criteria also met the substitutive and exclusive criteria but only 15 exclusive criteria. Of the 17 controls (not meeting DSM-III-R criteria), two met substitutive, five inclusive and one exclusive criteria for depression. The mean (+/- SD) scores for the patients and controls were significantly different on all four rating scales. Analysis of individual items on the rating scales revealed that a number did not show significant differences between the depressed and nondepressed groups: on the MADRS the items lassitude and inner tension; on the HDRS the three items depicting anxiety symptoms, loss of libido, hypochondriasis, loss of weight, and maintenance of insight; on the BDI a sense of being punished, disappointed in self, being self-critical, a feeling of looking unattractive, fatigue, weight loss, worried about health and loss of libido; on the CES-D I felt just as good as others, hopeful, talk less, people unfriendly and felt people dislike me.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The aetiological approach used by clinicians familiar with the features of HIV disease, was found to be useful. All four rating scales differentiated equally well between depressed and non-depressed groups.
authors.affiliation: University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cockram
authors.forename: F K
authors.initials: FK
authors.lastname: Judd
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mijch
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Norman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003866:Depressive Disorder / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis*; D015658:HIV Infections / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008370:Manuals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011567:Psychiatric Department, Hospital; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales / Q000592:standards*; D011570:Psychiatry / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000592:standards; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric