Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34966543›Full record

ReviewGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2021

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies of self-report screening instruments for common mental disorders in Arabic-speaking adults.

Anne M de Graaff, Pim Cuijpers, Mariska Leeflang, Irene Sferra, Jana R Uppendahl, Ralph de Vries, Marit Sijbrandij

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Anne M de GraaffDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6686-4432
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5497-2743
Mariska LeeflangDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-0471
Irene SferraDepartment of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Jana R UppendahlDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ralph de VriesMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2075-7495
Marit SijbrandijDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5430-9810

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-report screening instruments are frequently used as scalable methods to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but their validity across cultural and linguistic groups is unclear. We summarized the diagnostic accuracy of brief questionnaires on symptoms of depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among Arabic-speaking adults.

methodsFive databases were searched from inception to 22 January 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42018070645). Studies were included when diagnostic accuracy of brief (maximally 25 items) psychological questionnaires was assessed in Arabic-speaking populations and the reference standard was a clinical interview. Data on sensitivity/specificity, area under the curve, and data to generate 2 × 2 tables at various thresholds were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using the diagmeta package in R. Quality of studies was assessed with QUADAS-2.

resultsThirty-two studies (

conclusionWe present optimal thresholds to screen for perinatal depression with the EPDS, anxiety/depression with the HADS, and CMDs with the SRQ-20. More research on Arabic-language questionnaires, especially those targeting PTSD, is needed.

Indexed as

Anxiety disordersdepressive disorderpost-traumaticself-reportsensitivity and specificitystress disorders

Identifiers

PMID34966543
PMCPMC8679833

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.