Faye Plummer1, Laura Manea2, Dominic Trepel1, Dean McMillan3. 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom. 2. Hull York Medical School and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD United Kingdom. 3. Hull York Medical School and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD United Kingdom. Electronic address: dean.mcmillan@york.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy of the GAD-7 and GAD-2 questionnaires for identifying anxiety disorders. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that validated the GAD-7 or GAD-2 against a recognized gold standard diagnosis. Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy were produced using random-effects bivariate metaanalysis. Heterogeneity was explored using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: A total of 12 samples were identified involving 5223 participants; 11 samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-7 for identifying generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff point of 8 [sensitivity: 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.91), specificity: 0.84 (95% CI 0.70-0.92)] although cutoff scores 7-10 also had similar pooled estimates of sensitivity/specificity. Six samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-2 for identifying GAD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff of 3 [sensitivity: 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-0.89), specificity: 0.81 (95% CI 0.60-0.92)]. Four studies looked at the accuracy of the questionnaires for identifying any anxiety disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at cutoff scores 7-10. The GAD-2 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at a cutoff score of 3. Further validation studies are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy of the GAD-7 and GAD-2 questionnaires for identifying anxiety disorders. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that validated the GAD-7 or GAD-2 against a recognized gold standard diagnosis. Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy were produced using random-effects bivariate metaanalysis. Heterogeneity was explored using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: A total of 12 samples were identified involving 5223 participants; 11 samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-7 for identifying generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff point of 8 [sensitivity: 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.91), specificity: 0.84 (95% CI 0.70-0.92)] although cutoff scores 7-10 also had similar pooled estimates of sensitivity/specificity. Six samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-2 for identifying GAD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff of 3 [sensitivity: 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-0.89), specificity: 0.81 (95% CI 0.60-0.92)]. Four studies looked at the accuracy of the questionnaires for identifying any anxiety disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at cutoff scores 7-10. The GAD-2 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at a cutoff score of 3. Further validation studies are needed.
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Ana C Villegas; Ariana M Albanese; Hanna K Gaggin; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Harv Rev Psychiatry Date: 2018 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Derek D Satre; Alexandra N Anderson; Amy S Leibowitz; Tory Levine-Hall; Sally Slome; Jason Flamm; C Bradley Hare; Jennifer McNeely; Constance M Weisner; Michael A Horberg; Paul Volberding; Michael J Silverberg Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Rohit Devnani; James E Slaven; Gabriel T Bosslet; Kianna Montz; Lev Inger; Emily S Burke; Alexia M Torke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Yazan A Al-Ajlouni; Su Hyun Park; Steven A Safren; Noah T Kreski; Brian Elbel; Andrew Trinidad; Denton Callander; Dustin T Duncan Journal: J Gay Lesbian Ment Health Date: 2020-03-16
Authors: Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell; Donna M Evon; Jia Yao; Donna Niedzwiecki; Christina Makarushka; Kelly A Keefe; Ashwin A Patkar; Paolo Mannelli; James C Garbutt; John B Wong; Julius M Wilder; Santanu K Datta; Terra Hodge; Susanna Naggie; Michael W Fried; Andrew J Muir Journal: Hepatology Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sanjay Basu; Bruce E Landon; John W Williams; Asaf Bitton; Zirui Song; Russell S Phillips Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Yvonne Tran Bui; Matthew A Hathcock; Roberto P Benzo; Marie M Budev; Satish Chandrashekaran; David B Erasmus; Erika D Lease; Deborah J Levine; Karin L Thompson; Bradley K Johnson; Sheila G Jowsey-Gregoire; Cassie C Kennedy Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.863