OBJECTIVE: To examine the contribution of a mental and physical symptom count to the detection of single or comorbid anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders. METHOD: In primary care 1,046 consulting patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Physical Symptom Checklist (PSC-51). In a stratified sample of 473 patients DSM-IV psychiatric disorders were assessed using the WHO-SCAN interview. The diagnostic value of the HADS total score and the PSC-51 symptom count was examined with ROC-analyses. RESULTS: The discriminative power of PSC-51 and HADS was highest for patients with both a somatoform disorder and an anxiety or depressive disorder, with an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94) respectively. Using both symptom counts together did not increase the diagnostic value for the detection of the psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: Both symptom counts preferentially detected patients with comorbid disorders. When interpreting diagnostic values of screening questionnaires one should keep in mind that the validity of these values can be dependent of the presence of comorbid disorders.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the contribution of a mental and physical symptom count to the detection of single or comorbid anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders. METHOD: In primary care 1,046 consulting patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Physical Symptom Checklist (PSC-51). In a stratified sample of 473 patients DSM-IV psychiatric disorders were assessed using the WHO-SCAN interview. The diagnostic value of the HADS total score and the PSC-51 symptom count was examined with ROC-analyses. RESULTS: The discriminative power of PSC-51 and HADS was highest for patients with both a somatoform disorder and an anxiety or depressive disorder, with an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94) respectively. Using both symptom counts together did not increase the diagnostic value for the detection of the psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: Both symptom counts preferentially detected patients with comorbid disorders. When interpreting diagnostic values of screening questionnaires one should keep in mind that the validity of these values can be dependent of the presence of comorbid disorders.
Authors: Margot W M de Waal; Ingrid A Arnold; Philip Spinhoven; Just A H Eekhof; Albert M van Hemert Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: I Sandanger; T Moum; G Ingebrigtsen; O S Dalgard; T Sørensen; D Bruusgaard Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Patricia Casey; Graham Dunn; Brendan D Kelly; Ville Lehtinen; Odd S Dalgard; Christopher Dowrick; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-09 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Katja Beesdo; Frank Jacobi; Jürgen Hoyer; Nancy C P Low; Michael Höfler; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Margot W M de Waal; Ingrid A Arnold; Just A H Eekhof; Willem J J Assendelft; Albert M van Hemert Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2008-01-24 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Michelle Jh Verdurmen; Arjan C Videler; Astrid M Kamperman; David Khasho; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: P Nabbe; J Y Le Reste; M Guillou-Landreat; E Beck-Robert; R Assenova; D Lazic; S Czachowski; S Stojanović-Špehar; M Hasanagic; H Lingner; A Clavería; M I Fernandez San Martin; A Sowinska; S Argyriadou; C Lygidakis; B Le Floch; C Doerr; T Montier; H Van Marwijk; P Van Royen Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2018-01-03
Authors: M Scheffers; H Kalisvaart; J T van Busschbach; R J Bosscher; M A J van Duijn; S A M van Broeckhuysen-Kloth; R A Schoevers; R Geenen Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.630