Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26241601›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2015

Does This Patient Have Posttraumatic Stress Disorder?: Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Michele R Spoont, John W Williams, Shannon Kehle-Forbes, Jason A Nieuwsma, Monica C Mann-Wrobel, Raz Gross

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michele R SpoontUS Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota2Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Minne.
John W WilliamsUS Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 5Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University Medical School, Durham, North Carolina.
Shannon Kehle-ForbesCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Minneapolis, Minnesota3University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
Jason A NieuwsmaMid-Atlantic Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 7Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Monica C Mann-WrobelDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina8Department of Mental Health,Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Raz GrossDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel 10Gertner Institute for Health Policy and Epidemiology,Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importancePosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a relatively common mental health condition frequently seen, though often unrecognized, in primary care settings. Identifying and treating PTSD can greatly improve patient health and well-being.

objectiveTo systematically review the utility of self-report screening instruments for PTSD among primary care and high-risk populations. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE and the National Center for PTSD's Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) databases for articles published on screening instruments for PTSD published from January 1981 through March 2015. Study quality was rated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of screening instruments for PTSD evaluated using gold standard structured clinical diagnostic interviews that had interview samples of at least 50 individuals.

findingsWe identified 2522 citations, retrieved 318 for further review, and retained 23 cohort studies that evaluated 15 screening instruments for PTSD. Of the 23 studies, 15 were conducted in primary care settings in the United States (n = 14,707 were screened, n = 5374 given diagnostic interview, n = 814 had PTSD) and 8 were conducted in community settings following probable trauma exposure (ie, natural disaster, terrorism, and military deployment; n = 5302 were screened, n = 4263 given diagnostic interview, n = 393 were known to have PTSD with an additional 50 inferred by rates reported by authors). Two screens, the Primary Care PTSD Screen (PC-PTSD) and the PTSD Checklist were the best performing instruments. The 4-item PC-PTSD has a positive likelihood ratio of 6.9 (95% CI, 5.5-8.8) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.21-0.44) using the same score indicating a positive screen as used by the Department of Veterans Affairs in all of its primary care clinics. The 17-item PTSD Checklist has a positive likelihood ratio of 5.2 (95% CI, 3.6-7.5) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.29-0.37) using scores of around 40 as indicating a positive screen. Using the same score employed by primary care clinics in the Department of Veterans Affairs to indicate a positive screen, the 4-item PC-PTSD has a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.81), a specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95), a positive likelihood ratio of 8.49 (95% CI, 5.56-12.96) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22-0.48). For the 17-item PTSD Checklist, scores around 40 as indicating a positive screen, have a sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.77), a specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93), a positive likelihood ratio of 6.8 (95% CI, 4.7-9.9) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.27-0.40). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two screening instruments, the PC-PTSD and the PTSD Checklist, show reasonable performance characteristics for use in primary care clinics or in community settings with high-risk populations. Both are easy to administer and interpret and can readily be incorporated into a busy practice setting.

Indexed as

Primary Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesChecklistHumansMass ScreeningRiskSelf ReportSensitivity and SpecificityStress Disorders, Post-Traumatic

Identifiers

PMID26241601

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.