ArticleInjury2022
Comparison of two screeners predicting the future development of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder in Black men after serious injury.
Article in Injury, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background To assess the predictive performance of two established, short clinical screeners in predicting the future development of post-injury depression and PTSD. Methods This was a prospective, cohort design with a 3-month follow-up. Black adult male trauma patients were enrolled at an urban, Level 1 trauma center. The Penn Richmond Screener and the Posttraumatic Adjustment Scale (PAS) were collected in-hospital. Participants were categorized as depressed using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Self Report and as positive for PTSD using the PTSD Check List - 5 (PCL-5) at 3-months post-discharge. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of each screener were calculated. We used receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI to assess predictive performance of each screener. Results A cohort of 623 hospitalized, injured Black men were enrolled during acute hospitalization. 503 participants (80.6%) were retained at 3-months and formed the analytic sample. Mean age was 36.8 years (SD 15.4), 53.1% of injuries were intentional; median injury severity score was 9. At 3 months, 35.3% had moderate to severe depression, 32.7% had significant PTSD symptoms, and 22.4% met criteria for both depression and PTSD. Penn Richmond Screener: sensitivity 0.68, specificity 0.56, and AUC 0.62 for PTSD, and sensitivity 0.64, specificity 0.63, and AUC 0.64 for depression. PAS: sensitivity 0.59, specificity 0.73, and AUC 0.66 for PTSD, and sensitivity 0.75, specificity 0.49, and AUC 0.62 for depression. Conclusions This study validated the performance of both screeners within the same population, allowing a direct comparison. Two predictive screeners, developed through different methods and in different countries, showed comparable predictive ability. These findings indicate that risk markers for adverse psychological consequences of traumatic injury share some core similarities across populations and countries.
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.