Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37714674›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Sensitivity and specificity of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9, PHQ-8, PHQ-2) and General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7, GAD-2) for depression and anxiety diagnosis: a cross-sectional study in a Peruvian hospital population.

David Villarreal-Zegarra, Juan Barrera-Begazo, Sharlyn Otazú-Alfaro, Nikol Mayo-Puchoc, Juan Carlos Bazo-Alvarez, Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Health Outcomes of Women on Community Supervision in South Central Texas During the Perinatal Period.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

David Villarreal-ZegarraEscuela de Medicina, Universidad César Vallejo, Trujillo, Peru.ORCID 0000-0002-2222-4764
Juan Barrera-BegazoInstituto Peruano de Orientación Psicológica, Lima, Peru.
Sharlyn Otazú-AlfaroInstituto Peruano de Orientación Psicológica, Lima, Peru.
Nikol Mayo-PuchocInstituto Peruano de Orientación Psicológica, Lima, Peru.
Juan Carlos Bazo-AlvarezResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Jeff Huarcaya-VictoriaEscuela Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Ica, Peru jeff.huarcaya@upsjb.edu.pe.ORCID 0000-0003-4525-9545

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD) are widely used screening tools, but their sensitivity and specificity in low-income and middle-income countries are lower than in high-income countries. We conducted a study to determine the sensitivity and specificity of different versions of these scales in a Peruvian hospital population.

designOur study has a cross-sectional design.

settingOur participants are hospitalised patients in a Peruvian hospital. The gold standard was a clinical psychiatric interview following ICD-10 criteria for depression (F32.0, F32.1, F32.2 and F32.3) and anxiety (F41.0 and F41.1).

participantsThe sample included 1347 participants. A total of 334 participants (24.8%) were diagnosed with depression, and 28 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with anxiety.

resultsThe PHQ-9's≥7 cut-off point showed the highest simultaneous sensitivity and specificity when contrasted against a psychiatric diagnosis of depression. For a similar contrast against the gold standard, the other optimal cut-off points were: ≥7 for the PHQ-8 and ≥2 for the PHQ-2. In particular, the cut-off point ≥8 had good performance for GAD-7 with sensitivity and specificity, and cut-off point ≥10 had lower levels of sensitivity, but higher levels of specificity, compared with the cut-off point of ≥8. Also, we present the sensitivity and specificity values of each cut-off point in PHQ-9, PHQ-8, PHQ-2, GAD-7 and GAD-2. We confirmed the adequacy of a one-dimensional model for the PHQ-9, PHQ-8 and GAD-7, while all PHQ and GAD scales showed good reliability.

conclusionsThe PHQ and GAD have adequate measurement properties in their different versions. We present specific cut-offs for each version.

Indexed as

DepressionPatient Health QuestionnaireAnxietyAnxiety DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesGeneralized Anxiety DisorderHospitalsHumansPeruReproducibility of ResultsAnxiety disordersDepression & mood disordersSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID37714674
PMCPMC10510859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.