Open Access Research article

Validation of the PHQ-9 as a screening instrument for depression in diabetes patients in specialized outpatient clinics

Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg*, Lars de Vroege, Robert R Ploeger, Jan W Brals, Martijn G Vloedbeld, Thiemo F Veneman, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, Frans FH Rutten, Aartjan TF Beekman and Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis

BMC Health Services Research 2010, 10:235  doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-235

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Erratum: efficiency rates

Kirsten van Steenbergen-Weijenburg   (2012-12-11 10:26)  Trimbos-Institute

Unfortunately, inadvertently a printing error occurred in the calculation of the efficiency rates in Table 3 and in Table 4 in the article. Therefore, the efficiency rates were too low. The actual efficiency rates are higher. We apologize and offer the Erratum with correct efficiency rates for both Tables. The efficiency rates were not mentioned in the text and the change does not affect the primary outcomes and the conclusions that are discussed in the article. We apologize for the inconvenience. Table 3: Score ��8 = Efficiency 65.5% Score ��9 = Efficiency 67.5% Score ��10 = Efficiency 69.5% Score ��11 = Efficiency 75.6% Score ��12 = Efficiency 79.2% Table 4 PHQ 0-27 = Efficiency 81.7% Score >10 = Efficiency 63.7%

Competing interests

None declared


Post a comment