Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31397039›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2019

Indicators of mental disorders in UK Biobank-A comparison of approaches.

Katrina A S Davis, Breda Cullen, Mark Adams, Anamaria Brailean, Gerome Breen, Jonathan R I Coleman, Alexandru Dregan, Héléna A Gaspar, Christopher Hübel, William Lee and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Katrina A S DavisInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5945-4646
Breda CullenMental Health and Wellbeing, The Academic Centre, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7259-9505
Mark AdamsDivision of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anamaria BraileanInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6334-7349
Gerome BreenInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan R I ColemanInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6759-0944
Alexandru DreganInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Héléna A GasparInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Christopher HübelInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
William LeePeninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Andrew M McIntoshDivision of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
John NolanDivision of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Robert PearsallMental Health and Wellbeing, The Academic Centre, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Matthew HotopfInstitute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3980-4466
King's College London · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBChief Scientist Office · GBDevon Partnership NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office DTF/14/03Medical Research Council MC_PC_17209Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853The Sackler TrustWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104036/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFor many research cohorts, it is not practical to provide a "gold-standard" mental health diagnosis. It is therefore important for mental health research that potential alternative measures for ascertaining mental disorder status are understood.

methodsData from UK Biobank in those participants who had completed the online Mental Health Questionnaire (n = 157,363) were used to compare the classification of mental disorder by four methods: symptom-based outcome (self-complete based on diagnostic interviews), self-reported diagnosis, hospital data linkage, and self-report medication.

resultsParticipants self-reporting any psychiatric diagnosis had elevated risk of any symptom-based outcome. Cohen's κ between self-reported diagnosis and symptom-based outcome was 0.46 for depression, 0.28 for bipolar affective disorder, and 0.24 for anxiety. There were small numbers of participants uniquely identified by hospital data linkage and medication.

conclusionOur results confirm that ascertainment of mental disorder diagnosis in large cohorts such as UK Biobank is complex. There may not be one method of classification that is right for all circumstances, but an informed and transparent use of outcome measure(s) to suit each research question will maximise the potential of UK Biobank and other resources for mental health research.

Indexed as

Self ReportAdultCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMental DisordersMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareUnited Kingdomcohort studydiagnosisepidemiologymental disorderonline surveyUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID31397039
PMCPMC6877131
OpenAlexW2968083538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.