Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36620659›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

The potency of psychiatric questionnaires to distinguish major mental disorders in Chinese outpatients.

Jiayi Wang, Enzhao Zhu, Pu Ai, Jun Liu, Zhihao Chen, Feng Wang, Fazhan Chen, Zisheng Ai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Jiayi WangSchool of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Enzhao ZhuSchool of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Pu AiSchool of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jun LiuSchool of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Zhihao ChenSchool of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China.
Feng WangClinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Shanghai Pudong New Area Mental Health Center, School of Medicine, Chinese-German Institute of Mental Health, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Fazhan ChenClinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Shanghai Pudong New Area Mental Health Center, School of Medicine, Chinese-German Institute of Mental Health, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Zisheng AiClinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Shanghai Pudong New Area Mental Health Center, School of Medicine, Chinese-German Institute of Mental Health, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Considering the huge population in China, the available mental health resources are inadequate. Thus, our study aimed to evaluate whether mental questionnaires, serving as auxiliary diagnostic tools, have efficient diagnostic ability in outpatient psychiatric services. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of Chinese psychiatric outpatients. Altogether 1,182, 5,069, and 4,958 records of Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), respectively, were collected from March 2021 to July 2022. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to subscale scores and total scores of SCL-90, HAM-A, and HAM-D between the two sexes (male and female groups), different age groups, and four diagnostic groups (anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia). Kendall's tau coefficient analysis and machine learning were also conducted in the diagnostic groups. Results: We found significant differences in most subscale scores for both age and gender groups. Using the Mann-Whitney U test and Kendall's tau coefficient analysis, we found that there were no statistically significant differences in diseases in total scale scores and nearly all subscale scores. The results of machine learning (ML) showed that for HAM-A, anxiety had a small degree of differentiation with an AUC of 0.56, while other diseases had an AUC close to 0.50. As for HAM-D, bipolar disorder was slightly distinguishable with an AUC of 0.60, while the AUC of other diseases was lower than 0.50. In SCL-90, all diseases had a similar AUC; among them, bipolar disorder had the lowest score, schizophrenia had the highest score, while anxiety and depression both had an AUC of approximately 0.56. Conclusion: This study is the first to conduct wide and comprehensive analyses on the use of these three scales in Chinese outpatient clinics with both traditional statistical approaches and novel machine learning methods. Our results indicated that the univariate subscale scores did not have statistical significance among our four diagnostic groups, which highlights the limit of their practical use by doctors in identifying different mental diseases in Chinese outpatient psychiatric services.

Indexed as

Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A)Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D)machine learning (ML)mental disorderspsychiatric questionnairesSymptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90)

Identifiers

PMID36620659
PMCPMC9813586

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.