OBJECTIVE: Increasingly, epidemiological studies are employing computerized and highly standardized interviews, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto), to assess the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Recent studies conducted in specialist units have reported poor agreement between experienced clinicians' and CIDI-Auto diagnoses. In this study we investigated the concordance rate between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto for the diagnosis of six anxiety disorders and two mood disorders, whereby the CIDI-Auto was treated as the 'gold standard'. METHOD: Subjects were 262 patients who were assessed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and completed the CIDI-Auto at a tertiary referral unit for anxiety and mood disorders. Agreement between the clinicians' diagnoses and the diagnoses generated by the CIDI-Auto according to both DSM-IV and ICD-10 codes, were examined by kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity values were also calculated. RESULTS: Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (DSM-IV) ranged from poor for social phobia and posttraumatic stress disorder (kappa < 0.30) to moderate for obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD; kappa = 0.52). Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (ICD-10) ranged from poor for major depressive episode (kappa = 0.25) to moderate for OCD (kappa = 0.57). With the CIDI diagnosis treated as the gold standard, clinicians' diagnoses showed low sensitivity (kappa < 0.70) for all the disorders except for OCD (for ICD-10), but high specificity (kappa > 0.70) for all the disorders. CONCLUSION: Poor agreements between experienced clinicians and the CIDI-Auto were reported for anxiety and mood disorders in the current study. A major implication is that if diagnosis alone directed treatment, then patients could receive different treatments, depending on whether the computer, or a clinician, made the diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: Increasingly, epidemiological studies are employing computerized and highly standardized interviews, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto), to assess the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Recent studies conducted in specialist units have reported poor agreement between experienced clinicians' and CIDI-Auto diagnoses. In this study we investigated the concordance rate between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto for the diagnosis of six anxiety disorders and two mood disorders, whereby the CIDI-Auto was treated as the 'gold standard'. METHOD: Subjects were 262 patients who were assessed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and completed the CIDI-Auto at a tertiary referral unit for anxiety and mood disorders. Agreement between the clinicians' diagnoses and the diagnoses generated by the CIDI-Auto according to both DSM-IV and ICD-10 codes, were examined by kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity values were also calculated. RESULTS: Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (DSM-IV) ranged from poor for social phobia and posttraumatic stress disorder (kappa < 0.30) to moderate for obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD; kappa = 0.52). Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (ICD-10) ranged from poor for major depressive episode (kappa = 0.25) to moderate for OCD (kappa = 0.57). With the CIDI diagnosis treated as the gold standard, clinicians' diagnoses showed low sensitivity (kappa < 0.70) for all the disorders except for OCD (for ICD-10), but high specificity (kappa > 0.70) for all the disorders. CONCLUSION: Poor agreements between experienced clinicians and the CIDI-Auto were reported for anxiety and mood disorders in the current study. A major implication is that if diagnosis alone directed treatment, then patients could receive different treatments, depending on whether the computer, or a clinician, made the diagnosis.
Authors: Carrie J Nobles; Sarah E Valentine; Monica W Gerber; Derri L Shtasel; Luana Marques Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Jennifer Greif Green; Michael J Gruber; Ronald C Kessler; Julia Y Lin; Katie A McLaughlin; Nancy A Sampson; Alan M Zaslavsky; Margarita Alegria Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: N Zirke; C Seydel; D Arsoy; B F Klapp; H Haupt; A J Szczepek; H Olze; G Goebel; B Mazurek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mary E Bongiovi-Garcia; Jessica Merville; M Goretti Almeida; Ainsley Burke; Steven Ellis; Barbara H Stanley; Kelly Posner; J John Mann; Maria A Oquendo Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Adrienne Means-Christensen; Cathy D Sherbourne; Peter Roy-Byrne; Michelle G Craske; Alexander Bystritsky; Murray B Stein Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: David C Rettew; Alicia Doyle Lynch; Thomas M Achenbach; Levent Dumenci; Masha Y Ivanova Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Margarita Alegria; Patrick E Shrout; Maria Torres; Roberto Lewis-Fernández; Jamie M Abelson; Meris Powell; Alejandro Interian; Julia Lin; Mara Laderman; Glorisa Canino Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Carrie J Nobles; Sarah E Valentine; Christina P C Borba; Monica W Gerber; Derri L Shtasel; Luana Marques Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 3.006