Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22274737›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2012

Standardized diagnostic interviews, criteria, and algorithms for mental disorders: garbage in, garbage out.

Michael Linden, Beate Muschalla

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. First results from post-COVID inpatient rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Michael Linden
Beate Muschalla

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a general consensus that diagnoses for mental disorders should be based on criteria and algorithms as given in ICD or DSM. Standardized clinical interviews are recommended as diagnostic methods. In ICD and DSM, much emphasis is put on algorithms, while the underlying criteria get much less attention. The question is how valid are the criteria that are collected by structured diagnostic interviews. 209 patients from a cardiology inpatient unit were interviewed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). 32 (15.3%) were diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive episode or dysthymia. Additionally, a thorough clinical examination was done by a psychiatric expert in 15 patients. The standardized diagnosis of present major depression was reaffirmed in one. In total, four patients were suffering from some kind of depressive disorder presently or life time. Two patients were suffering from anxiety disorders, two from adjustment disorders, and four from different types of organic brain disorders. Most important, there are 3 out of 15 who are not mentally ill. Our observations show that standardized diagnostic interviews cannot be used to make specific differential diagnoses, but rather catch unspecific syndromes. This is partly due to the fact that the wording, definition, and understanding of the underlying criteria is rather vague. This is an even greater problem if there is any somatic comorbidity. In the revision of ICD and DSM, a glossary of psychopathological terms and guidelines for the training of clinicians should be included.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsAdultAlgorithmsDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesInterview, PsychologicalMajor Depressive DisorderMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

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.