Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28080106›Full record

ArticlePsychological assessment2017

Validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) for identifying depression and anxiety in young adult cancer survivors: Comparison with a Structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview.

Christopher J Recklitis, Jaime E Blackmon, Grace Chang

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological assessment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  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. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher J RecklitisPerini Family Survivors' Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Jaime E BlackmonPerini Family Survivors' Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Grace ChangDepartment of Psychiatry, VA Boston Healthcare System.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USVA Boston Healthcare System · US

Funding

Automated interviews to validate distress measures in cancer survivorsR21CA161315 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI RECKLITIS, CHRISTOPHER JOHN · 2012 to 2013
$402k
National Cancer InstituteNCI NIH HHS R21 CA161315
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) is widely used to assess psychological symptoms in cancer survivors, but the validity of conventional BSI-18 cut-off scores in this population has been questioned. This study assessed the accuracy of the BSI-18 for identifying significant anxiety and depression in young adult cancer survivors (YACS), by comparing it with a "gold standard" diagnostic interview measure. Two hundred fifty YACS, age 18-40 completed the BSI-18 and the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; SCID) interview assessing anxiety and depressive disorders. BSI-18 results were compared with SCID criteria using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses. Forty four participants (17.7%) met criteria for ≥1 SCID diagnoses, and an additional 20 (8.0%) met criteria for clinically significant SCID symptoms without a diagnosis. General concordance between the BSI-18 GSI scale and SCID diagnosis was good (AUC = 0.848), but the 2 most widely used BSI-18 case rules failed to identify a majority of survivors with SCID diagnoses, and no alternative BSI-18 cut-off scores met study criteria for clinical screening. Analyses aimed at identifying survivors with significant SCID symptoms or a SCID diagnosis had similar results, as did analyses examining depression and anxiety separately. The BSI-18 shows good overall concordance with a psychiatric interview, but recommended cut-off scores fail to identify a majority of YACS with psychiatric diagnosis. Clinicians should not rely on the BSI-18 alone as a screening measure for YACS. Alternative BSI-18 scoring algorithms optimized for detecting psychiatric symptoms in YACS may be an important step to address this limitation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnxietyAnxiety DisordersCancer SurvivorsDepressionDepressive DisorderFemaleHumansMalePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28080106
PMCPMC5507754
OpenAlexW2572576391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.