Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20212303›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Feasibility and diagnostic validity of the M-3 checklist: a brief, self-rated screen for depressive, bipolar, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders in primary care.

Bradley N Gaynes, Joanne DeVeaugh-Geiss, Sam Weir, Hongbin Gu, Cora MacPherson, Herbert C Schulberg, Larry Culpepper, David R Rubinow

Open access · diamondAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Assessment Tool of Bipolar Disorder for Primary Health Care: The SAEBD.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Brief Mental Health Disorder Screening Questionnaires and Use with Public Safety Personnel: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Bradley N GaynesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7160, USA. bgaynes@med.unc.edu
Joanne DeVeaugh-Geiss
Sam Weir
Hongbin Gu
Cora MacPherson
Herbert C Schulberg
Larry Culpepper
David R Rubinow
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USBoston University · USCornell University · USDay Family Medicine · USSocial and Scientific Systems (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMood and anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric conditions seen in primary care, yet they remain underdetected and undertreated. Screening tools can improve detection, but available instruments are limited by the number of disorders assessed. We wanted to assess the feasibility and diagnostic validity of the My Mood Monitor (M-3) checklist, a new, 1-page, patient-rated, 27-item tool developed to screen for multiple psychiatric disorders in primary care.

methodsWe enrolled a sample of 647 consecutive participants aged 18 years and older who were seeking primary care at an academic family medicine clinic between July 2007 and February 2008. We used a 2-step scoring procedure to make screening more efficient. The main outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity of the M-3 for major depression, bipolar disorder, any anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a specific type of anxiety disorder. Using a split sample technique, analysis proceeded from determination of optimal screening thresholds to assessment of the psychometric properties of the self-report instrument using the determined thresholds. We used the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview as the diagnostic standard. Feasibility was assessed with patient and physician exit questionnaires.

resultsThe depression module had a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.80. The bipolar module had a sensitivity of 0.88, and a specificity of 0.70. The anxiety module had a sensitivity of 0.82 and a specificity of 0.78, and the PTSD module had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.76. As a screen for any psychiatric disorder, sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.76. Patients took less than 5 minutes to complete the M-3 in the waiting room, and less than 1% reported not having time to complete it. Eighty-three percent of clinicians reviewed the checklist in 30 or fewer seconds, and 80% thought it was helpful in reviewing patients' emotional health.

conclusionsThe M-3 demonstrates utility as a valid, efficient, and feasible tool for screening multiple common psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder and PTSD, in primary care. Its diagnostic accuracy equals that of currently used single-disorder screens and has the additional benefit of being combined into a 1-page tool. The M-3 potentially can reduce missed psychiatric diagnoses and facilitate proper treatment of identified cases.

Indexed as

Self-AssessmentAcademic Medical CentersAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnxiety DisordersBipolar DisorderDepressive DisorderFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorth CarolinaPrimary Health CarePsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID20212303
PMCPMC2834723
OpenAlexW2139966406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.