ArticleHealth science reports2022
Screening of psychiatric disorders in women with high-risk pregnancy: Accuracy of three psychological tools.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alloimmunization in Pregnancy: Patient-reported Quality of Care, Mental Health Effects, and Impact Upon Daily Life.AJP reports · 2025Article
- Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Women with Threatened Abortion: A Case-Control Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Psychological Counseling Intervention in High-Risk Pregnancies in Italy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Prenatal and Postnatal Depressive Symptoms in Babol Pregnancy Mental Health Registry: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Psychological distress in pregnancy and postpartum: a cross-sectional study of Babol pregnancy mental health registry.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Antepartum Psychosis in the Setting of Preeclampsia With Severe Features: A Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of prenatal anxiety disorders: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Cluster Analysis on the Mental Health States in a Community Sample of Young Women During Pre-Pregnancy, Pregnancy, or the Postpartum Period.Psychiatry investigation · 2023Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the High-Risk Pregnancy Well-Being Index in Mashhad: a methodological study.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- The role of psychological self-care on worry of vaccination against COVID-19 in Iranian pregnant women: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Screening of psychiatric disorders in women with high-risk pregnancy: Accuracy of three psychological tools.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Effects of Yoga exercise on anxiety and fetus growth in pregnant women with small for gestational age fetus.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the optimal cutoff points of three psychological tools for screening psychiatric disorders in women with high-risk pregnancy. DESIGN AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study (N = 155),
resultsThe usual cutoffs (≥13 for EPDS, T-score of 63 for BSI-53) demonstrated poor diagnostic accuracy. The optimal thresholds were computed for EPDS cutoff of 6.5, GSI = 0.47 for BSI-53, and GSI = 0.5 for BSI-18. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The use of psychological tools among pregnant women with high-risk pregnancy may need to be modified in order to accurately identify psychiatric disorders.
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.