ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2018
Decision curve analysis as a framework to estimate the potential value of screening or other decision-making aids.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating modifiable hypertension risk in Nigerian adults-The Nigerian diet risk score.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Article
- A CT-based interpretable machine learning model for preoperative prediction of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor aggressiveness.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Mental Health Screening and Differences in Access to Care among Prisoners.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2018Article
- Decision curve analysis as a framework to estimate the potential value of screening or other decision-making aids.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is an increasing debate about the impact of mental health screening. We illustrate the use of a decision making framework that can be applied when there is no sufficient data to support a traditional cost-benefit analysis.
methodsWe conducted secondary analyses of data from 459 male prisoners who were screened upon intake. We compared the potential benefit of different approaches (screening, history taking, and universal interventions) to allocating treatment resources using decision curve analysis.
resultsScreening prisoners for distress at typical levels of sensitivity (75%) and specificity (71%) were estimated to provide the greatest net benefit if between 2 and 5 false positives per detected illness are tolerable. History taking and self-harm screening provide the largest net benefit when only 1 or 2 false positives per detected illness would be tolerable. The benefits of screening were less among those without a recent psychiatric history, ethnic minorities, and those with fewer psychosocial needs.
conclusionsAlthough screening has potential to increase detection of treatment, important subgroup differences exist. Greater consideration of responses to positive screens or alternatives to screening are needed to maximize the impact of efforts to improve detection and treatment of mental illness.
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.