The Bipolar II Depression Questionnaire: A Self-Report Tool for Detecting Bipolar II Depression.

Bipolar II (BP-II) depression is often misdiagnosed as unipolar (UP) depression, resulting in suboptimal treatment. Tools for differentiating between these two types of depression are lacking. This study aimed to develop a simple, self-report screening instrument to help distinguish BP-II depression from UP depressive disorder. A prototype BP-II depression questionnaire (BPIIDQ-P) was constructed following a literature review, panel discussions and a field trial. Consecutively assessed patients with a diagnosis of depressive disorder or BP with depressive episodes completed the BPIIDQ-P at a psychiatric outpatient clinic in Hong Kong between October and December 2013. Data were analyzed using discriminant analysis and logistic regression. Of the 298 subjects recruited, 65 (21.8%) were males and 233 (78.2%) females. There were 112 (37.6%) subjects with BP depression [BP-I = 42 (14.1%), BP-II = 70 (23.5%)] and 182 (62.4%) with UP depression. Based on family history, age at onset, postpartum depression, episodic course, attacks of anxiety, hypersomnia, social phobia and agoraphobia, the 8-item BPIIDQ-8 was constructed. The BPIIDQ-8 differentiated subjects with BP-II from those with UP depression with a sensitivity/specificity of 0.75/0.63 for the whole sample and 0.77/0.72 for a female subgroup with a history of childbirth. The BPIIDQ-8 can differentiate BP-II from UP depression at the secondary care level with satisfactory to good reliability and validity. It has good potential as a screening tool for BP-II depression in primary care settings. Recall bias, the relatively small sample size, and the high proportion of females in the BP-II sample limit the generalization of the results.

Evaluation of the performance of a modified Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scoring system for critically ill patients in emergency departments in Hong Kong.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous prognostic predictive models have been developed for critically ill patients, many of which are primarily designed for use in intensive care units. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a modified Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scoring system in predicting the mortality for critically ill patients managed in emergency department (ED) resuscitation rooms in Hong Kong. METHOD: A multi-centre, prospective study was conducted for patients managed in the resuscitation rooms of the EDs of four major hospitals, including one university teaching hospital. The primary outcome measure was 14 day all-cause mortality and the secondary outcome measure was the length of stay in hospital. RESULTS: Of 867 patients recruited between 4 and 30 April 2004, 106 (12.2%) patients died. The modified APACHE II score was found to be significantly higher in non-survivors compared to survivors (mean+/-S.D.: 21.2+/-7.7 versus 14.4+/-7.1, p<0.001). The area under the curve for modified APACHE II in predicting mortality was 0.743 (95% CI, 0.696-0.790). CONCLUSION: The modified APACHE II score is only a moderate predictor of mortality for critically ill patients managed in the resuscitation rooms of EDs in Hong Kong. A more ED specific scoring method is required.