Psychometric properties of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in individuals with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is used to assess anxiety and depression in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, its measurement properties lack critical appraisal. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the HADS in COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and evidence quality in the selected studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies assessed the psychometric properties of the HADS-Total and its subscales HADS-Anxiety and HADS-Depression in COPD. High-quality evidence supported the structural and criterion validity of the HADS-A, the internal consistency of the HADS-T, HADS-A, and HADS-D with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.73-0.87, and before-after treatment responsiveness of HADS-T and its subscales (minimal clinically important difference = 1.4-2; effect size = 0.45-1.40). Moderate-quality evidence supported the test-retest reliability of the HADS-A and HADS-D with excellent coefficient values of 0.86-0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The HADS-A is recommended for use in individuals with stable COPD. The lack of high-quality evidence on the validity of the HADS-D and HADS-T prevented drawing robust conclusions about their clinical utility in COPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".