History of postpartum depression in a clinic-based sample of women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Overlapping comorbidities between premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and postpartum depression (PPD) suggest that these disorders represent a continuum of vulnerability with shared pathophysiology. We report the past histories of PPD (and other Axis I psychiatric illnesses) in a clinic-based sample of women meeting criteria for PMDD. METHODS: 215 women, ages 19 to 51 years, who attended the National Institute of Mental Health Mood Disorders Clinic between 1988 and 2013 seeking treatment for PMDD and in whom we confirmed the diagnosis of PMDD (DSM-IV), were identified. All were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R or -IV. The frequency of PPD (major or minor) was established in the subgroup of women (n = 137) who had delivered at least 1 child. RESULTS: Ninety-three women (43.3%) had a past history of a mood disorder (ie, either major [n = 67; 31.2%] or minor [n = 10; 4.7%] depression or PPD [n = 16; 7.4%; 11.7% of parous women]). Nine of the 16 women with PMDD and a past PPD had either a past major depressive episode (MDE) or subsyndromal anxiety disorder. Thirty-three women (15.3%) had a past history of an Axis I anxiety disorder. A total of 40 women (18.6%) met criteria for past alcohol or drug abuse, 3 (1.4%) met criteria for bulimia nervosa, and 2 (0.9%) met criteria for anorexia nervosa. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that PMDD and PPD do not frequently co-occur. These data do not suggest that PMDD and PPD share similar pathophysiology beyond being ovarian-steroid-triggered mood disorders. The high comorbidity of past MDE could contribute to the increased risk both for future MDE and for PPD in some women with PMDD.

Diagnosis of depression in adolescents following traumatic fracture: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how frequently adolescents are clinically diagnosed with depression following hospitalization for traumatic fracture, with the assumption that a retrospective approach would yield lower rates of depression compared to those reported previously in prospective studies. We hypothesized that depression would be less common among adolescents whose injuries were primarily limited to fractures of the appendicular skeleton, vertebral column, and/or thoracic cage compared to those sustaining concomitant spinal cord and/or brain injuries and those suffering from facial/skull fractures. METHOD: A patient population of 1,121 adolescents, aged 12 to 19 years, who were hospitalized overnight at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health System, Charlottesville, for fractures between 2000 and 2009, was generated using the health system's Clinical Data Repository. The number of these adolescents who received a new diagnosis of depression (per ICD-9 codes) at the UVA Health System within the first year following their injury was determined. RESULTS: By the end of the first year, 37 of 913 adolescents (4.1%) who had at least 1 follow-up visit after their fracture were diagnosed with depression. When patients with a concomitant spinal cord injury and those with a facial/skull fracture with or without an associated brain injury were excluded, this percentage dropped to 3.2% and 1.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results support our initial hypothesis that the percentage of adolescents diagnosed with depression following a traumatic fracture determined retrospectively would be lower than the percentages previously reported in related prospective studies. This finding adds to the growing concern that depression in youth is underdiagnosed, even among youth who have contact with health care providers. When compared to our own retrospectively determined data, the much higher rates of depression reported in several prospective studies indicate that more proactive, routine implementation of depression screening tools in the postinjury period is likely to improve identification of at-risk youth.

Systematic assessment of the quality of research studies of conventional and alternative treatment(s) of primary headache.

BACKGROUND: Diversity of treatments used for headache, and varied quality of research conduct and reporting make it difficult to accurately assess the literature and to determine the best treatment(s) for patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of available research evidence describing the effects and outcomes of conventional, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches to treating primary (migraine, tension, and/or cluster-type) headache. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of quality of research studies of conventional and alternative treatment(s) of primary headache. METHODS: Randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of treatment(s) of chronic primary headache (in English between 1979 to June 2004) were searched through MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the NIH databases. Studies were evaluated using standard approaches for assessing and analyzing quality indicators. RESULTS: 125 studies of conventional, and 121 CAM treatments met inclusion criteria. 80% of studies of conventional treatment(s) reported positive effects (p<0.05), versus 73% of studies of CAM approaches (chi(2) = 3.798, 1 df, p=0.051). Overall, the literature addressing the treatment of primary headache received a mean Jadad score of 2.72 out of 5 (SD 1.1). The mean Jadad score for studies of conventional therapeutics was significantly better than for those studies of CAM approaches: 3.21 +/- 0.9 vs 2.23 +/- 1.1 (t=7.72, 246 df, mean difference 0.98, p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of conventional treatments scored higher on reporting quality than studies of CAM approaches. It is possible that these differences may reflect distinctions in 1) methodologic integrity, 2) therapeutic paradigm(s), and/or 3) bias(es) in the approach(es) used to evaluate certain types of therapies. Each of these possibilities -- and the implications -- is addressed and considered.