ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2012
Standardized diagnostic interviews, criteria, and algorithms for mental disorders: garbage in, garbage out.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Insomnia and poor sleep quality in refugee and asylum-seeking populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- The prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in adult ADHD compared with non-ADHD populations: A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Wisdom affinity in the general population.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- [Patienten mit komorbiden somatischen und psychischen Erkrankungen haben ähnliche Fähigkeitsbeeinträchtigen wie Patienten mit psychischen Erkrankungen].Die Rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Intra-rater Kappa Accuracy of Prototype and ICD-10 Operational Criteria-Based Diagnoses for Mental Disorders: A Brief Report of a Cross-Sectional Study in an Outpatient Setting.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- First results from post-COVID inpatient rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
22274737What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.