Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Clinical global impression

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale is a standardized, clinician-rated instrument that provides a broad assessment of a patient's overall severity of psychiatric illness and degree of following , drawing on the clinician's global judgment informed by all available about . Originally developed in 1976 by William Guy for the Institute of Mental Health's Early Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (ECDEU) as part of a manual for assessments, the CGI has become a tool in psychiatric and practice due to its applicability across all major mental disorders, including , , and . The scale originally comprised three subscales: the CGI-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), which rates current symptom severity on a 7-point scale from 1 (normal, not at all ill) to 7 (among the most extremely ill); the CGI-Global (CGI-I), which evaluates change from baseline on a 7-point scale from 1 (very much improved since starting ) to 7 (very much worse since starting ); and the CGI-Efficacy Index, a 4x4 matrix that weighs against severity. However, the Efficacy Index has not been used in recent trials and is not included in the current version of the CGI, with contemporary applications focusing primarily on the CGI-S and CGI-I. Its design emphasizes clinical expertise over rigid criteria, allowing for quick administration—typically under one minute by trained raters—and has demonstrated reliability in correlating with comprehensive symptom inventories like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Over the past nearly five decades, the has been integral to thousands of clinical trials, including those supporting FDA approvals for psychotropic medications, while also aiding routine clinical to guide adjustments in and document outcomes for regulatory or reimbursement purposes.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) is a standardized, three-item, clinician-rated developed to evaluate the overall clinical progress of patients with psychiatric disorders, emphasizing the clinician's holistic judgment of the patient's global status rather than itemized symptom counts. Originating in the 1970s within National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored research, it serves as a simple, standalone measure applicable across diverse diagnoses. The primary purposes of the include establishing baseline severity of illness, monitoring changes in patient condition over time, and gauging treatment through a non-specific, global lens that captures therapeutic benefits and side effects without requiring disorder-specific criteria. This approach enables its use in both routine clinical practice and clinical trials, where detailed symptom scales may be impractical. Structurally, each of the CGI's three components employs a 7-point ordinal scale, allowing for rapid completion—typically under 5 minutes—while drawing on the rater's clinical expertise and familiarity with the patient's . Its brevity and reliance on professional judgment make it particularly valuable for capturing nuanced, real-world impressions of patient functioning in time-constrained environments.

Historical Development

The Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale originated in the 1970s as a standardized tool for assessing treatment outcomes in psychiatric research, amid the rapid expansion of psychopharmacological investigations following the introduction of new antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. It was formally introduced in the 1976 revised edition of the ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology, compiled by William Guy under the auspices of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)'s Early Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (ECDEU) program, which had been active since 1959. This manual integrated the CGI into a broader battery of instruments designed for NIMH-sponsored clinical trials, aiming to provide a brief, clinician-based global evaluation of patient severity, improvement, and therapeutic efficacy across diverse psychiatric populations, including those with schizophrenia and anxiety disorders. The initial purpose of the was to address inconsistencies in outcome measurement during an era of burgeoning , offering a simple 7-point rating system that relied on the clinician's overall experience rather than symptom-specific checklists, thereby facilitating cross-study comparisons in psychopharmacological trials. By the , the scale's versatility led to its adoption beyond , particularly in clinical trials, where structured variants like the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) were developed to enhance reliability in assessing cognitive and functional changes. A key evolution occurred in 2007, when Busner and Targum proposed guidelines for its improved application in clinical practice—the so-called improved CGI (iCGI)—to mitigate limitations such as rater bias influenced by irrelevant adverse events or unstructured narratives, emphasizing standardized anchors and comprehensive patient history . The CGI's milestones include its widespread integration into regulatory processes, notably contributing to U.S. (FDA) approvals for antipsychotics like and antidepressants such as the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination for , where it served as a primary for demonstrating clinical in pivotal trials. In the , updates have focused on hybrid versions that incorporate patient perspectives, such as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scales paired with traditional CGI ratings, aligning with FDA guidance on patient-reported outcomes to better capture subjective treatment responses in diverse therapeutic contexts, including adaptations for disorder clinical trials and a severity scale for as of 2025.

Components of the CGI

CGI-Severity Scale

The CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale is a clinician-rated measure that evaluates the overall severity of a patient's illness at a specific point in time, serving as the baseline component of the Clinical Global Impressions framework. It relies on the rater's total clinical experience with patients who have the same , incorporating all available information such as patient interviews, behavioral observations, historical records, and collateral reports from family or charts, without focusing on or specific symptoms. This approach emphasizes a holistic impression of the patient's current status relative to typical individuals with the same condition, typically assessed over the past seven days unless otherwise specified. The scale employs a 7-point ordinal , where clinicians select the single score that best captures the patient's severity:
  • 1: Normal, not at all ill
  • 2: Borderline mentally ill
  • 3: Mildly ill
  • 4: Moderately ill
  • 5: Markedly ill
  • 6: Severely ill
  • 7: Among the most extremely ill patients
Ratings are completed by trained clinicians, preferably the same individual across assessments for consistency, and take minimal time—often just minutes—following direct observation or review of records. A distinguishing feature of the CGI-S is its independence from rigid diagnostic criteria or standardized symptom checklists, enabling its application across diverse psychiatric disorders such as , , or anxiety without modification. In terms of , scores of 4 or higher generally signify moderate to severe illness levels that may require active , while lower scores (1-3) indicate minimal or no significant impairment. The is administered at to establish initial severity and at subsequent follow-up points to monitor stability or progression, often in conjunction with the CGI-Improvement scale to track changes over time.

CGI-Improvement Scale

The Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale is a clinician-rated measure designed to assess the overall change in a patient's condition from a pre-treatment , providing a global evaluation of therapeutic response regardless of the specific underlying symptoms or disorders. It emphasizes the clinician's judgment based on total clinical experience, focusing on perceptible improvements or deteriorations since the initiation of treatment. The CGI-I employs a 7-point ordinal scale to quantify this change, with anchors defined as follows: 1 indicates "very much improved," reflecting substantial alleviation of symptoms and functional impairment; 2 denotes "much improved," signifying definite improvement that is clearly observable but not maximal; 3 represents "minimally improved," indicating a slight but noticeable positive shift; 4 means "no change" from baseline; 5 signifies "minimally worse," with a minor exacerbation; 6 indicates "much worse," showing a clear deterioration; and 7 denotes "very much worse," representing a profound worsening of the condition. These anchors allow for nuanced differentiation between minimal and substantial changes, enabling the scale to capture varying degrees of therapeutic impact. In practice, the CGI-I is typically administered following treatment initiation, often on a weekly basis during clinical trials to monitor response over time, with ratings comparing the patient's current status to their pre-treatment condition as established via the CGI-Severity scale. This timing facilitates early detection of trends in improvement, supporting adjustments in therapeutic strategies. Interpretation of CGI-I scores centers on response categories, where scores of 1 to 3 generally denote positive overall change, though scores of 1 or 2 are commonly used as criteria for treatment responders in clinical trials, representing clinically meaningful improvement. For instance, a score of 1 or 2 often serves as a primary in studies of psychotropic medications, highlighting substantial therapeutic effects. Unlike measures of absolute severity, the CGI-I's emphasis on relative global change makes it particularly sensitive to treatment effects across patients with diverse baseline conditions, accommodating variability in initial illness states.

CGI-Efficacy Index

The CGI-Efficacy Index (CGI-E) provides a clinician-rated assessment of the net therapeutic benefit of a treatment by simultaneously considering improvements in clinical symptoms and the presence or severity of adverse side effects. Developed as part of the original Clinical Global Impression framework, it offers a concise way to evaluate overall treatment utility in psychopharmacological contexts. This subscale uses a 4x4 matrix structure, with rows representing levels of therapeutic effect and columns representing side effect severity. The rater selects the cell that best describes the balance between efficacy and tolerability based on clinical judgment. The therapeutic effect levels are: 1 (marked improvement), 2 (moderate improvement), 3 (minimal improvement), 4 (unchanged or worse). The side effect levels are: 1 (none), 2 (do not significantly interfere with functioning), 3 (significantly interfere with functioning), 4 (outweigh the therapeutic effect). Some implementations number the matrix cells from 0 to 16 for scoring, with lower numbers indicating better net benefit (e.g., 0 for marked improvement with no side effects, 16 for unchanged/worse with side effects outweighing benefits). The rating integrates the clinician's judgment of therapeutic response—drawing from observed changes akin to those in the CGI-Improvement scale—with direct evaluation of side effect burden, based on patient reports, clinical observation, and knowledge of the treatment regimen. Historically, the CGI-E played a key role in early National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored drug trials during the , where it helped gauge both and in novel psychotropic agents. It requires the rater to be familiar with the specifics of the 's pharmacotherapy to accurately weigh benefits against risks. Modern clinical trials often rely on separate, standardized reporting systems for greater granularity on side effects, though the CGI-E remains valuable for providing a holistic overview of treatment outcomes in certain settings. By incorporating both clinical response and tolerability, the CGI-E contributes to a more comprehensive evaluation of treatment outcomes beyond isolated measures of severity or improvement.

Psychometric Properties

Validity

The construct validity of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale has been established through moderate to strong correlations with more detailed symptom-specific measures in clinical trials for mood disorders. For instance, in analyses of multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for , the CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale showed Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of 0.82–0.87 with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) at treatment endpoint, indicating substantial in assessing overall illness severity, while pretreatment correlations were lower at r=0.52. These findings align with early evaluations of the CGI, where it demonstrated with scales like the HDRS by capturing global clinical states in . Content validity of the CGI is supported by its high , stemming from a clinician-centered that holistically assesses illness severity and improvement relative to typical presentations in psychiatric practice. This approach allows clinicians to integrate multifaceted observations into a single global rating, making it intuitively aligned with real-world psychopharmacological evaluations. Expert consensus in further endorses this, as evidenced by the scale's widespread adoption in clinical trials since its development, where it is valued for comprehensively representing therapeutic outcomes without requiring exhaustive item-by-item scoring. Criterion validity is evident in the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale's ability to predict long-term clinical outcomes, such as remission, in treatment studies. In pooled analyses from trials, a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at week 1 successfully predicted remission at endpoint (up to 196 weeks), based on both Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and (PANSS) criteria, with significant predictive associations (p<0.0001 for BPRS remission). A 2007 validation study of the improved CGI (iCGI) demonstrated enhanced concurrent validity over the original scale, particularly in diverse clinical settings for depressive disorders. By incorporating a semi-standardized interview and diverse rater expertise (e.g., psychoanalysts and pharmacologists), the iCGI achieved higher interrater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75) and greater sensitivity to change (=1.02) compared to the HDRS (=0.61), supporting its applicability across varied patient demographics and improving alignment with established symptom measures.

Reliability and Sensitivity

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale exhibits moderate inter-rater reliability, with values generally ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 across multi-rater studies involving clinicians assessing psychiatric symptoms. For instance, weighted kappa coefficients of 0.517 have been reported for the CGI-Severity scale in evaluations of autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children, indicating fair to moderate agreement among raters. A 2011 multicenter study comparing therapist and perspectives on CGI ratings in antidepressant trials found moderate agreement, with intraclass correlation coefficients () of 0.65 for the CGI-Improvement scale and lower congruence (ICC 0.37) for severity change ratings, highlighting variability influenced by rater viewpoint. Test-retest reliability for the is high in stable patient populations, often yielding values greater than 0.8, as demonstrated in assessments of cognitive deficits in where stability ranged from 0.92 to 0.95 over short intervals. However, reliability decreases in acute clinical settings, with ICCs dropping below 0.7 due to the scale's reliance on subjective clinical judgment and fluctuating symptom presentations. The shows strong sensitivity to change, particularly in short-term trials, where effect sizes of 0.5 to 1.0 have been observed in studies comparing active treatment to . It reliably detects minimal clinically important differences (MCID), with a 1-point shift on the CGI-Improvement scale corresponding to meaningful clinical improvement across various disorders. A 2023 published in The Lancet Psychiatry further illustrated this sensitivity, revealing that early trajectories of CGI-Severity scores in transdiagnostic psychiatric samples predicted 6-month hospitalization risk, with high instability and severity conferring up to a 45% increased risk of hospitalization.

Clinical Applications

Use in Research and Trials

The Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale has served as a key in Phase III clinical trials for psychiatric medications, including antipsychotics, contributing to numerous FDA approvals since the 1980s. For instance, in trials evaluating atypical antipsychotics like and , the CGI-I was employed to assess overall treatment response and supported regulatory decisions on efficacy. This usage aligns with the scale's role in providing a clinician-rated global evaluation of patient improvement, often integrated alongside symptom-specific measures. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the CGI is integrated into study designs for baseline assessment and ongoing evaluation. The CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale is commonly applied at baseline to stratify participants by illness severity, ensuring balanced groups across treatment arms. Repeated CGI measurements enable longitudinal analysis, such as through linear mixed models, to track changes over time and evaluate treatment trajectories in conditions like . Regulatory agencies, including the FDA and , endorse the CGI for capturing global impressions of psychiatric disorders in clinical research. The FDA recognizes the CGI as a valid outcome in virtually all regulated trials, while assessments for drugs like have incorporated CGI data to demonstrate therapeutic benefits. The scale has been utilized in numerous clinical trials for disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and , where it facilitates endpoint determination in RCTs evaluating medications like and mood stabilizers. A 2021 review in Value in Health highlighted the efficiency of global impression scales, including the , in and trials, noting their ability to provide concise multi-domain assessments of symptoms, functioning, and without requiring extensive instrumentation. For example, scores in trials have correlated with improvements in mental health-related , underscoring its practical utility in confirmatory studies. Recent applications include its use as a key in the 2024 FDA authorization of Rejoyn, a digital therapeutic for .

Use in Clinical Practice

In routine clinical practice, the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale is often employed for weekly monitoring of patient progress in outpatient settings, particularly for conditions such as and anxiety, where clinicians rate changes over the past seven days to inform treatment decisions like dose adjustments. For instance, a CGI-I score of 2 (much improved) may signal the continuation or optimization of current , while scores of 4 or higher (no change or worsening) could prompt switches or augmentation strategies to address persistent symptoms. This approach facilitates consistent tracking without requiring extensive time, making it suitable for busy psychiatric practices. The CGI-Severity (CGI-S) scale supports clinical decision-making by providing thresholds that guide interventions, such as a score of 4 or greater (moderately ill or worse), which may trigger referrals to specialized services or intensified monitoring when baseline functioning does not improve. Integration with electronic health records enhances this utility, allowing automated visualization of CGI trends alongside other data like and , as demonstrated in psychiatric decision-support systems that bin patients by CGI scores to evaluate outcomes over time. Such incorporation promotes longitudinal and reduces administrative burden in routine care. A 2010 review highlighted the adaptability of the CGI in daily practice, emphasizing its value in resource-limited clinics where its brevity enables quick assessments across diverse psychiatric presentations, including comorbid and anxiety, without needing specialized training. Emerging practices incorporate patient perspectives through hybrid models combining clinician-rated CGI with Patient Global Impression (PGI) scales, fostering greater involvement in community settings by aligning self-reported improvement with professional judgments to refine personalized care plans.

Limitations and Criticisms

Subjectivity and Bias

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale is inherently subjective, relying on the clinician's overall judgment of a patient's severity and improvement without standardized diagnostic criteria or objective benchmarks, which introduces variability based on the rater's personal experience and expectations. This subjectivity can lead to rater bias, where clinicians unconsciously favor positive outcomes, particularly in blinded trials; for instance, in a randomized placebo-controlled study of antidepressants for , treatment effects were estimated to be 25% larger when raters believed patients were receiving active medication compared to when blinding was successful. Discrepancies between clinician and patient perspectives further highlight this bias, as therapists often rate improvement more favorably than patients themselves. In a study of 31 inpatients with , congruence between therapist and patient CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings was moderate ( coefficient [ICC] = 0.65), while agreement on CGI-Severity (CGI-S) change was low (ICC = 0.37), with patients providing more conservative assessments that better aligned with self-reported depression symptoms. The absence of explicit anchors in the CGI exacerbates subjectivity, allowing cultural, diagnostic, or experiential factors to influence scoring; clinicians from diverse backgrounds may interpret terms like "mildly ill" differently based on their total clinical experience, leading to inconsistent applications across populations or conditions. This is particularly evident in short-term trials, where expectation bias can overestimate improvement, as raters' preconceptions about treatment efficacy inflate positive ratings without accounting for effects or transient changes. Specific limitations include reduced sensitivity in mild cases, where the 7-point scale's coarse categories fail to capture subtle improvements, and limited applicability to non-psychiatric conditions, as the tool was developed primarily for psychiatric disorders. Inter-rater variability is notable in diverse clinical teams, particularly compared to more structured scales like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, underscoring the need for training to mitigate inconsistencies. Efforts to address these issues, such as the improved (iCGI), incorporate prompts and case vignettes to standardize assessments and reduce bias. More recent critiques, as of 2024, emphasize the need for cautious application of the due to potential inconsistencies in its use and gaps in comprehensive psychometric evaluation across populations.

Comparisons to Other Scales

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale differs from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) in its global, clinician-judged assessment of overall illness severity and improvement, comprising just three items, whereas the HDRS is a symptom-specific tool with 17 to 21 items focusing on detailed depressive symptoms like and complaints. This brevity makes the CGI more suitable for rapid clinical evaluations and broad applicability across disorders, but it sacrifices the HDRS's precision in tracking specific symptom changes, potentially limiting its utility in nuanced monitoring. In contrast to the Patient Global Impression (PGI) scale, which relies on self-reported patient perceptions of change, the CGI emphasizes clinician observations, leading to differences in reliability and alignment with patient experiences. This highlights the CGI's strength in objective, professional assessments but potential disconnect from subjective patient views. The CGI also contrasts with the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), a 10-item instrument targeting core depressive symptoms such as apparent sadness and reduced sleep, offering greater diagnostic specificity for mood disorders. Unlike the MADRS's focused structure, the CGI's transdiagnostic approach lacks this specificity, drawing criticism for vagueness in research requiring targeted symptom delineation. Equipercentile linking analyses indicate specific correspondences between scores, such as MADRS total <8 aligning with CGI-S of 2. Overall, the CGI's simplicity facilitates its adaptation into variants like the Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), which maintains a concise format to evaluate global change in cognitive and functional domains, supporting broad use in neurodegenerative trials where detailed scales may overburden assessors. However, for conditions like , alternatives such as the (PANSS) provide superior granularity by dissecting positive, negative, and general symptoms across 30 items, offering more precise tracking than the CGI's holistic ratings, though at the cost of increased administration time.

References

  1. [1]
    The Clinical Global Impressions Scale: Applying a Research Tool in ...
    The Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale is a well-established research rating tool applicable to all psychiatric disorders that can easily be used by the ...
  2. [2]
    A Characterization of the Clinical Global Impression Scale ... - NIH
    Jun 14, 2022 · This clinician-rated, seven-point scale is used to assess the overall impairment and severity of a psychiatric diagnosis with the Clinical ...
  3. [3]
    The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or ...
    May 14, 2011 · The Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) is a brief clinician-rated instrument that consists of three different global measures. 1. Severity ...
  4. [4]
    Clinical Global Impression Scales | NIDA Data Share - NIH
    Feb 25, 2016 · The CGI is typically administered several times during treatment to track progress. While it takes only about 5 minutes to complete, its use ...
  5. [5]
    The Relative Sensitivity of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale and ...
    Aug 17, 2005 · The Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta ...Patients And Methods · Outcome Parameters · Statistical Analysis
  6. [6]
    Clinical global impressions in Alzheimer's clinical trials - PubMed
    This article reviews the history of Clinical Global Impressions of Change (CGIC) instruments, their use and limitations in clinical trials of Alzheimer's ...Missing: adoption 1990s
  7. [7]
    Use of antipsychotics in the treatment of depressive disorders - PMC
    Combined treatment with olanzapine and fluoxetine has been approved by the USFDA for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression (olanzapine 5-20 mg/d, ...
  8. [8]
    The Patient Global Impression of Change as a complementary tool ...
    May 31, 2024 · The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assesses symptom improvement, as perceived by the patient, which may align better with usual/pre-injury level ...
  9. [9]
    Use of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity - Dove Medical Press
    Jun 7, 2022 · Evaluating the agreement between Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale in depression.Methods · Study Design And Patients · Assessment Of ResponseMissing: original | Show results with:original<|control11|><|separator|>
  10. [10]
    ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology
    Clinical Global Impressions. Dosage Record and Treatment Emergent Symptoms ... made by anyone with some clinical experience who follows the instructions.
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) - AACAP
    Severity of Illness. Considering your total clinical experience with this particular population, how mentally ill is the patient at this time?
  12. [12]
    Efficacy and Safety of SPD503 in Combination With Psychostimulants
    Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) consists of a 7-point scale ... Baseline and weekly up to 8 weeks. Assessment of Clinical Global ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Title: The added value of the CGI-I scale in assessing global severity ...
    In MDD trials, response is typically defined as a CGI-I score of 1 or 2 (much or very much improved), while a CGI-S rating of 1 or 2 is used to define remission ...
  14. [14]
    Imputing the Number of Responders from the Mean and Standard ...
    A clinically important response is frequently defined as at least much improvement (i.e., a number of participants with a CGI-I score of one or two) [11].
  15. [15]
    A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial ...
    As a result, the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale was used as the primary efficacy end point (proportionof responders based on a score of 1 ...
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Clinical Global Impression (CGI)
    Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Reference: Guy W, editor. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. 1976. Rockville, MD, U.S. Department of Health ...
  18. [18]
    Pharmacogenomics-Guided Pharmacotherapy in Patients with ...
    Feb 19, 2022 · The CGI efficacy index (CGI-EI) ratings take into account both ... (marked improvement and no side effects) to 16 (unchanged or worse ...
  19. [19]
    Study on psychoeducation enhancing results of adherence in ...
    ... rarely used in past studies on adherence to therapy in patients with ... The CGI-efficacy index is a rating scale crossing the efficacy of the ...
  20. [20]
    Use of Clozapine in 10 Mentally Retarded Adults - Psychiatry Online
    At the end of treatment, the average CGI efficacy index was 1.9, which indicates moderate to marked improvement from the drug, with side effects that “do ...
  21. [21]
    An analysis of correlations among four outcome scales employed in ...
    Although MADRS and CGI-I were more sensitive to treatment effects, HAM-D 17 , MADRS, CGI-S and CGI-I scores present a consistent picture of response to ...Studies And Patients · Table 1 · Figure 2
  22. [22]
    The improved Clinical Global Impression Scale (iCGI)
    Feb 6, 2007 · This paper proposes a methodology that aims to improve the validity of CGI severity and improvement scales in the field of depressive disorders.
  23. [23]
    Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) as a valid proxy ...
    A CGI-I score of 1 or 2 at Week 1 also successfully predicted remission in schizophrenia. Conclusion: The findings show a correlation between clinical and ...Missing: relapse | Show results with:relapse
  24. [24]
    Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) as a valid proxy ...
    A CGI-I score of 1 correlated with the remission criteria developed by the remission working group. In the combined ziprasidone arms, BPRS scores at Weeks 1, 3, ...Missing: responder | Show results with:responder
  25. [25]
    Use of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) to Assess ... - NIH
    Jun 7, 2022 · By contrast, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) is a single-item, 7-point scale designed to assess global impression of severity ...Abstract · Introduction · Assessment Of Response
  26. [26]
    Using the Clinical Global Impression Scale to Assess Social ... - NIH
    Nov 19, 2021 · The Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) is a 7-point scale that has been adapted so that clinicians can easily and quickly rate social communication ...
  27. [27]
    The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or ...
    May 14, 2011 · Busner et al. [16] found that the CGI ratings of the clinicians are affected by indication-irrelevant adverse events reported by the patient.
  28. [28]
    Clinical Global Impression of Cognition in Schizophrenia (CGI-CogS)
    ... reliability (ICC's = .71 to .80), and high test-retest stability (ICC's = .92 to .95). Correlations of caregiver and rater global (but not "patient only rating") ...
  29. [29]
    Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Clinical Global ... - NIH
    The weakest correlation among raters was for the CGI-S-SCA overall rating (ICC=0.5). For test-retest reliability, the ICC for rating pairs on the CGI-S-SCA ...
  30. [30]
    Relative Sensitivity of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating ...
    We compared the effect sizes of the HAM-D, MADRS and Clinical Impressions Rating Scale (CGI-S for severity and CGI-I for improvement) for patients assigned to ...
  31. [31]
    Clinical Global Impression (CGI) - Mental Health Literacy
    Routine use of the CGI at every clinic visit can help simplify record keeping and lets you know how your patient has done over the duration of her/his care.
  32. [32]
    Visual Analytics for Electronic Health Records: A Review - MDPI
    Data view of contextual patient treatment outcome shows the CGI score of a patient over time. It also displays prescribed medications and their timespan using ...
  33. [33]
    PGI-I (patient's global impression) as an outcome and quality ...
    The PGI scale is appropriate as a quality indicator for routine clinical treatment which can rather easily be obtained.
  34. [34]
    Rater bias in a blinded randomized placebo-controlled psychiatry trial
    Rater bias occurs when rater knowledge of treatment assignment modifies the outcome assessment. Raters may be unconsciously influenced by inclinations for or ...
  35. [35]
    Clinical use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
    A post hoc comparison of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Maier and Bech ... Clinical Global Impression ratings to be unreliable. A cutoff ≤4 ...
  36. [36]
    Clinical use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - PubMed
    Outcome measures were internal consistency and concurrent validity of HDRS, Maier, Bech, Clinical Global Impression scales, and Symptom Checklist depression ...
  37. [37]
    Real-life assessment of the validity of patient global impression of ...
    This analysis aimed at assessing the validity of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), a GRC scale commonly used in fibromyalgia, in a Canadian real-life ...
  38. [38]
    What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI ...
    Mar 1, 2017 · Methods: We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and ...Missing: comparison | Show results with:comparison
  39. [39]
    Validity and reliability of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study ...
    This article reports the development and psychometric properties of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC).Missing: variant simplicity
  40. [40]
    To what extent do the PANSS and CGI-S overlap? - PubMed
    Both measures, however, show substantial agreement in detecting change, and the CGI-S shows overlap with the core symptoms of schizophrenia. Publication types.Missing: granularity | Show results with:granularity