Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503463›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2020

Test-retest reliability of the computer-assisted DIA-X-5 interview for mental disorders.

Jana Hoyer, Catharina Voss, Jens Strehle, John Venz, Lars Pieper, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, Stefan Ehrlich, Katja Beesdo-Baum

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mental health apps within the healthcare system: associations with stigma and mental health literacy.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jana HoyerInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Catharina VossInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Jens StrehleInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
John VenzInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Lars PieperInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Hans-Ulrich WittchenDepartment of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Stefan EhrlichDivision of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Katja Beesdo-BaumInstitute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. Katja.Beesdo-Baum@tu-dresden.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9687-5527

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need of comprehensive standardized diagnostic assessment tools of psychopathology that match recent changes in diagnostic classification systems, such as the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Therefore, the computer-assisted DIA-X-5 was developed and its test-retest reliability was explored. The DIA-X-5 is based on the DIA-X/M-CIDI (Diagnostisches Expertensystem für psychische Störungen/Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview) which referred to the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

methodsA convenience sample (N = 60, age: 15-67) was interviewed twice with the computer-assisted DIA-X-5 interview, on average nine days apart, by trained and blinded interviewers. The DIA-X-5 is a standardized instrument for research purposes covering symptoms, syndromes and diagnoses from eleven classes of mental disorders according to the DSM-5 with matching F codes of the 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10).

resultsKappa values ranged from 0.90 for post-traumatic stress disorder to 0.30 for social anxiety disorder. For age of onset and age of recency, test-retest reliability as measured by intra-class correlation was satisfying with values above 0.90 for most disorders.

conclusionsTest-retest reliability of the DIA-X-5 syndromes and diagnoses were comparable to those of previous DSM-IV/DIA-X diagnoses for most disorders. Due to low case numbers for some diagnoses, further research in larger samples is required.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesInterview, PsychologicalMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultCIDIClinical interviewDIA-XDSM-5Retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID32503463
PMCPMC7275419

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.