This report describes the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD), an improved version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale that was developed through a broad-based international consensus process. The GRID-HAMD separates the frequency of the symptom from its intensity for most items, refines several problematic anchors, and integrates both a structured interview guide and consensus-derived conventions for all items. Usability was established in a small three-site sample of convenience, evaluating 29 outpatients, with most evaluators finding the scale easy to use. Test-retest (4-week) and interrater reliability were established in 34 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, as part of an ongoing clinical trial. In a separate study, interrater reliability was found to be superior to the Guy version of the HAMD, and as good as the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D), across 30 interview pairs. Finally, using the SIGH-D as the criterion standard, the GRID-HAMD demonstrated high concurrent validity. Overall, these data suggest that the GRID-HAMD is an improvement over the original Guy version as well as the SIGH-D in its incorporation of innovative features and preservation of high reliability and validity.

No abstract

The use of centralized raters who are remotely linked to sites and interview patients via videoconferencing or teleconferencing has been suggested as a way to improve interrater reliability and interview quality. This study compared the effect of site-based and centralized ratings on patient selection and placebo response in subjects with major depressive disorder. Subjects in a 2-center placebo and active comparator controlled depression trial were interviewed twice at each of 3 time points: baseline, 1-week postbaseline, and end point--once by the site rater and once remotely via videoconference by a centralized rater. Raters were blind to each others' scores. A site-based score of greater than 17 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) was required for study entry. When examining all subjects entering the study, site-based raters' HDRS-17 scores were significantly higher than centralized raters' at baseline and postbaseline but not at end point. At baseline, 35% of subjects given an HDRS-17 total score of greater than 17 by a site rater were given an HDRS total score of lower than 17 by a centralized rater and would have been ineligible to enter the study if the centralized rater's score was used to determine study entry. The mean placebo change for site raters (7.52) was significantly greater than the mean placebo change for centralized raters (3.18, P < 0.001). Twenty-eight percent were placebo responders (>50% reduction in HDRS) based on site ratings versus 14% for central ratings (P < 0.001). When examining data only from those subjects whom site and centralized raters agreed were eligible for the study, there was no significant difference in the HDRS-17 scores. Findings suggest that the use of centralized raters could significantly change the study sample in a major depressive disorder trial and lead to significantly less change in mood ratings among those randomized to placebo.

No abstract