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."
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."
Authors: Anna Exner; Maria Kleinstäuber; Wolfgang Maier; Angela Fuchs; Juliana J Petersen; Ingmar Schäfer; Jochen Gensichen; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Siegfried Weyerer; Horst Bickel; Hans-Helmut König; Birgitt Wiese; Gerhard Schön; Martin Scherer; Hendrik van den Bussche; Berend Terluin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Azeesat Babajide; Ana Ortin; Chiaying Wei; Laura Mufson; Cristiane S Duarte Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Charles N Bernstein; Lixia Zhang; Lisa M Lix; Lesley A Graff; John R Walker; John D Fisk; Scott B Patten; Carol A Hitchon; James M Bolton; Jitender Sareen; Renée El-Gabalawy; James Marriott; Ruth Ann Marrie Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Jordi Alonso; Zhaorui Liu; Sara Evans-Lacko; Ekaterina Sadikova; Nancy Sampson; Somnath Chatterji; Jibril Abdulmalik; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Ali Al-Hamzawi; Laura H Andrade; Ronny Bruffaerts; Graça Cardoso; Alfredo Cia; Silvia Florescu; Giovanni de Girolamo; Oye Gureje; Josep M Haro; Yanling He; Peter de Jonge; Elie G Karam; Norito Kawakami; Viviane Kovess-Masfety; Sing Lee; Daphna Levinson; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Fernando Navarro-Mateu; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Marina Piazza; José Posada-Villa; Margreet Ten Have; Zahari Zarkov; Ronald C Kessler; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Alvaro Camacho; Wassim Tarraf; Daniel E Jimenez; Linda C Gallo; Patricia Gonzalez; Robert C Kaplan; Melissa Lamar; Tasneem Khambaty; Bharat Thyagarajan; Krista M Perreira; Rosalba Hernandez; Jianwen Cai; Martha L Daviglus; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Hector M González Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Semiha Aydin; Mathilde R Crone; Bart M Siebelink; Robert R J M Vermeiren; Mattijs E Numans; P Michiel Westenberg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 2.692