Reviewgreen2015

DETECTION OF ANXIETY DISORDERS IN PRIMARY CARE: A META-ANALYSIS OF ASSISTED AND UNASSISTED DIAGNOSES

Elena Olariu · Carlos G. Forero · José Ignacio Castro-Rodríguez · Maria Teresa Rodrigo‐Calvo · Pilar Álvarez · Luis Miguel Martín‐Lopez +6 more

76 citations0/0 files storedDepression and Anxiety

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Mental Health Treatment and Access Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that general practitioners (GPs) fail to diagnose up to half of common mental disorder cases. Yet no previous research has systematically summarized the evidence in the case of anxiety disorders. The aim of this review was to systematically assess and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' assisted (i.e., using severity scales/diagnostic instruments) and unassisted (without such tools) diagnoses of anxiety disorders. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO registry CRD42013006736) was conducted. Embase, Ovid Journals--Ovid SP Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were searched from January 1980 through June 2014. Seven investigators, working in pairs, evaluated studies for eligibility. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool version 2 (QUADAS-2). The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses of any anxiety disorder. We pooled sensitivity and specificity levels from included studies using bivariate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total sample of 34,902 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 44.5% (95% CI 33.7-55.9%) and 90.8% (95% CI 87-93.5%). GPs' sensitivity was higher when diagnoses were assisted (63.6%, 95% CI 50.3-75.1%) than when unassisted (30.5%, 95% CI 20.7-42.5%) to the expense of some specificity loss (87.9%, 95% CI 81.3-92.4% vs. 91.4%, 95% CI 86.6-94.6%, respectively). Identification rates remained constant over time (P-value = .998). CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnostic tools might improve detection of anxiety disorders in "primary care."

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 76 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2007Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence, Impairment, Comorbidity, and Detection 2005Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews 1994Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. The PRIME-MD 1000 study 1994Utility of a New Procedure for Diagnosing Mental Disorders in Primary Care 2011Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010 2009Anxiety and Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: Developmental Issues and Implications for DSM-V

Cited by

2019Transition Cliffs for Young Adults with Anxiety and Depression: Is Integrated Mental Health Care a Solution?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.