SynthesisPloS one2016
Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 196 papers, 19 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
196 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 359 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of 633,317 individuals shows associations between healthy diets and depression, anxiety and stress in 23 low- and middle-income countries.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring global efforts in mental health screening and early detection.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of mental health screening tools applicable to adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of co-morbid anxiety and depression in pregnancy and postpartum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Cultural adaptations of third-wave psychotherapies in Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A systematic review.Transcultural psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of Perinatal Anxiety and Related Disorders in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of cross-cultural measures of resilience and its promotive and protective factors.Transcultural psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Approaches to the development of new screening tools that assess distress in Indigenous peoples: A systematic mixed studies review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Association between depressive symptoms in the postpartum period and COVID-19: A meta-analysis.Journal of affective disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Psychometric Validation of a Combined Assessment for Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care in Mozambique (CAD-MZ).Assessment · 2022Pooled it
- Mental Health of University Students in Southeastern Asia: A Systematic Review.Asia-Pacific journal of public health · 2022Pooled it
- Mental health and well-being of older adults living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Global burden of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression in countries affected by war between 1989 and 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2021Pooled it
- Prevalence and factors associated with common mental disorders in young people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2021Pooled it
- Estimating the risk of suicide associated with mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.Journal of psychiatric research · 2021Pooled it
- Validated screening tools to identify common mental disorders in perinatal and postpartum women in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Establishing reliability and validity for mental health screening instruments in resource-constrained settings: Systematic review of the PHQ-9 and key recommendations.Psychiatry research · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review of validated screening tools for anxiety disorders and PTSD in low to middle income countries.BMC psychiatry · 2020Pooled it
- Prevalence and correlates of major depressive disorder: a systematic review.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999)Pooled it
- Access to affordable daycare and women's mental health in Rajasthan, India: Evidence from a cluster-randomised social intervention.Journal of global health · 2024Trial
136 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations.
methodsA systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools.
results153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts.
conclusionsOf the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.