The authors respond

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 184, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 438-439

  Thombs, Brett D ^a,b   Coyne, James C ^c   Cuijpers, Pim ^c   De Jonge, Peter ^c   Gilbody, Simon ^c   Ioannidis, John P A ^c   Johnson, Blair T ^c   Patten, Scott B ^c   Turner, Erick H ^c   Ziegelstein, Roy C ^c  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSULTATION; DEPRESSION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LETTER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREVALENCE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SCREENING TEST; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 84857849037     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.112-2024     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Linden W, Vodermaier A. Re-rethinking the article by Thombs and colleagues [letter]. CMAJ 2012;184:438.
2. Thombs BD, Arthurs E, El-Baalbaki G, et al. Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have a diagnosis or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review. BMJ 2011;343:d4825.
3. Thombs BD, Coyne JC, Cuijpers P, et al. Rethinking recommendations for screening for depression in primary care. CMAJ 2012;184:413-8.
4. UK National Screening Committee. Second report of the UK National Screening Committee. London (UK): Department of Health; 2000.
5. Raffle A, Gray M. Screening: evidence and practice. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2007.
6. Carlson LE, Groff SL, Maciejewski O, et al. Screening for distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4884-91.