Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Jan 23;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1744-859X-8-4.

An analysis of correlations among four outcome scales employed in clinical trials of patients with major depressive disorder.

Author information

Wyeth Research, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, PA, USA.



The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 17) remains the 'gold standard' for measuring treatment outcomes in clinical trials of depressed patients. The Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales are also widely used.


This analysis of data from 22 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies of venlafaxine in adult patients with major depressive disorder was aimed at assessing correlations among these 4 scales.


Changes from baseline for MADRS, HAM-D 17 and CGI-S, and end point CGI-I scores and response (>or=50% decrease from baseline HAM-D 17 or MADRS, or CGI-S or CGI-I score <or=2) were analysed. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for all pairs of the four scales (HAM-D 17/MADRS, HAM-D 17/CGI-S, HAM-D 17/CGI-I, MADRS/CGI-S, MADRS/CGI-I, CGI-S/CGI-I) at different time points. Effect sizes were calculated using the Cohen d.


Correlations were significant at all time points (p < 0.0001), increased over the course of treatment, and were similar across treatment groups. Effect sizes ranged from 0.31 to 0.42; MADRS and CGI-I effect sizes were slightly greater compared with HAM-D 17 or CGI-S for continuous measures and response.


Although MADRS and CGI-I were more sensitive to treatment effects, HAM-D 17, MADRS, CGI-S and CGI-I scores present a consistent picture of response to venlafaxine treatment.

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center