0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Letter to the Editor   |    
Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures
BERNARD J. CARROLL, M.B.B.S., Ph.D., F.R.C.Psych.
Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:2395-a-2396. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2395-a

To the Editor: Dr. Bagby and colleagues offer a premature obituary for the Hamilton depression scale. Here are three major reasons why the Hamilton depression scale endures as the gold standard.

Max Hamilton developed his scale to record the severity of clinical depressive illness, not to quantitate a metaphysical construct called "major depression." The Hamilton depression scale is a clinimetric index (1), focused on the patient’s burden of illness. That is why, for example, it contains anxiety symptoms that emerge prominently in depressive episodes but that are not diagnostic of depression. Consistent with the pleomorphic presentations of clinical depression, that is also why it includes so many symptoms. Used as Hamilton intended, by clinicians who actually know the patients, the Hamilton depression scale captures an impressive range of clinical phenomena from mild to extreme illness. In this light, complaints about nonalignment of the Hamilton depression scale with DSM-IV criteria are irrelevant. Likewise, demands for the ultimate in psychometric properties are misplaced. Abridged versions that aim for essentialist purity over untidy clinical reality have not gained acceptance. To echo the quip about democracy, the Hamilton depression scale may be the worst depression scale ever developed, except for all the others.

Second, the call for a new scale based on contemporary concepts of major depression is unrealistic. Which proposed concepts should we use? Current definitions of major depression, instantiated in DSM-IV, for instance, are deliberately atheoretical nominalist conventions that lack unifying constructs, predictive validity, and explanatory power. That is one reason why populations diagnosed with DSM-IV major depression are so heterogeneous. In the future, we might add biomarkers or endophenotypes to clinical symptoms in assessing depression, but that day is not here.

Third, as a practical matter, the Hamilton depression scale is not surpassed on performance by any other scale. The view that the Hamilton depression scale is insensitive to change in severity of depression is simply wrong. This charge is often joined with the claim that the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (2) is more sensitive and therefore preferable as an outcome measure. That claim rests on slim evidence, in a sample of only 35 patients. In a large meta-analysis, the Hamilton depression scale actually was somewhat better than the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale in sensitivity to change and in detecting early change with treatment while having the advantage of far more comprehensive symptom coverage (3). There is no foundation for the assertion of Dr. Bagby et al. that patients might be denied valuable new antidepressant drugs because the Hamilton depression scale lacks sensitivity to register their efficacy.

The endurance of the Hamilton depression scale is remarkable, considering how many unauthorized, nonvalidated, mutant versions now circulate (Hamilton’s original 17 items have expanded to 28 at my last count). This is not progress, however, because the text versions and procedural use in many contemporary treatment trials are corrupted.

Feinstein AR: Clinimetrics. New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, 1987
 
Montgomery SA, Åsberg M: A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry  1979; 134:382–389
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Carroll BJ, Wilson WH: HAM-D and MADRS as depression change measures, in New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (NCDEU) Program Abstracts, 40th Annual Meeting. Rockville, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 2000, poster number 9
 
+

References

Feinstein AR: Clinimetrics. New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, 1987
 
Montgomery SA, Åsberg M: A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry  1979; 134:382–389
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Carroll BJ, Wilson WH: HAM-D and MADRS as depression change measures, in New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (NCDEU) Program Abstracts, 40th Annual Meeting. Rockville, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 2000, poster number 9
 
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Related Content
Books
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles