Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32419687›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2020

Development of the RMT20, a composite screener to identify common mental disorders.

Philip J Batterham, Matthew Sunderland, Natacha Carragher, Alison L Calear

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Philip J BatterhamCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4547-6876
Matthew SunderlandMatilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Natacha CarragherWorld Health Organization, Switzerland; and Office of Medical Education, UNSW Sydney, Australia.
Alison L CalearCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Australia.
Australian National University · AUThe University of Sydney · AUWorld Health Organization - Pakistan · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are few very brief measures that accurately identify multiple common mental disorders.

aimsThe aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of a new composite measure to screen for five common mental disorders.

methodTwo cross-sectional psychometric surveys were used to develop (n = 3175) and validate (n = 3620) the new measure, the Rapid Measurement Toolkit-20 (RMT20) against diagnostic criteria. The RMT20 was tested against a DSM-5 clinical checklist for major depression, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, with comparison with two measures of general psychological distress: the Kessler-10 and Distress Questionnaire-5.

resultsThe area under the curve for the RMT20 was significantly greater than for the distress measures, ranging from 0.86 to 0.92 across the five disorders. Sensitivity and specificity at prescribed cut-points were excellent, with sensitivity ranging from 0.85 to 0.93 and specificity ranging from 0.73 to 0.83 across the five disorders.

conclusionsThe RMT20 outperformed two established scales assessing general psychological distress, is free to use and has low respondent burden. The measure is well-suited to clinical screening, internet-based screening and large-scale epidemiological surveys.

Indexed as

anxietyassessmentdepressionScreening

Identifiers

PMID32419687
PMCPMC7331084
OpenAlexW3026752944

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.