ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Lessons learned from applying established cut-off values of questionnaires to detect somatic symptom disorders in primary care: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The spectrum of somatic and psychological distress: a novel cross-disciplinary analysis of medical and non-medical students in the academic landscape.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of a cognition and social participation bolt-on for the EQ-5D-5L in SARS-CoV-2 infected German healthcare workers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- PACIC: patient activation and problem solving not related to age in patients with depressive symptoms.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Based on two diagnostic accuracy studies in high-prevalence settings, two distinctly different combinations of cut-off values have been recommended to identify persons at risk for somatic symptom disorder (SSD) with the combination of the Patient-Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale (SSD-12). We investigated whether the reported sensitivity and specificity of both recommended cut-off combinations are transferable to primary care. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 420 unselected adult primary care patients completed PHQ-15 and SSD-12. Patients scoring ≥9 and ≥ 23 (recommended cut-off combination #1) or ≥ 8 and ≥ 13 (recommended cut-off combination #2) were considered test-positive for SSD, respectively. To assess the validity of the reported sensitivity and specificity in different low- to high-prevalence settings, we compared correspondingly expected proportions of test positives to the proportion observed in our sample. Results: Based on combination #1, 38 participants (9%) were found to be test positive, far fewer than expected, based on the reported values for sensitivity and specificity (expected minimum frequency 30% with a true prevalence ≥1%). This can only be explained by a lower sensitivity and higher specificity in primary care. For combination #2, 98 participants (23%) were test positive, a finding consistent with a true prevalence of SSD of 15% or lower. Discussion: Our analyzes strongly suggest that the sensitivity and specificity estimates reported for combination #1 are not applicable to unselected primary care patients and that the cut-off for the SSD (≥23) is too strict. Cut-off combination #2 seems more applicable but still needs to be tested in studies that compare screening findings by questionnaires with validated diagnostic interviews as reference standards in primary care populations.
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.