ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Primary Care PTSD for DSM-5 Screen (PC-PTSD-5) in Demographic and Diagnostic Subgroups of Veterans.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The diagnostic accuracy of PTSD assessment instruments used in older adults: a systematic review.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Duration on Volumetric and Microstructural Parameters of the Hippo-Campus, Amygdala, and Prefrontal Cortex: A Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study with Correlation Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Primary Care PTSD Screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) is a screening instrument designed to identify patients with probable PTSD and is mandated to be used in VA primary care settings. However, validation of the diagnostic accuracy of the instrument is lacking in various demographic and diagnostic groups.
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the PC-PTSD-5 in demographically and diagnostically stratified groups of VA primary care patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsBased on a sample of 519 VA primary care patients (40.61% response rate), the PC-PTSD-5 was evaluated against a criterion measure, examining its sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic properties. Evaluations were conducted in demographically stratified patient groups, including gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education, as well as diagnostically stratified groups, in patients with and without a depression, alcohol use, and drug use disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The MINI-International Neuropsychiatric Interview was the criterion measure against which the PC-PTSD-5 was evaluated. KEY
resultsAmong the 10 demographically stratified groups of patients, the PC-PTSD-5 demonstrated a sensitivity between 81.25% (95% C.I.: 54.35 - 05.95) and 100% (95% C.I.: 63.06 - 1000) and its specificity ranged from 80.54% (95% C.I.: 74.70 - 85.55) to 88.31% (95% C.I.: 83.45 - 92.15). Among the 6 diagnostically stratified groups of patients (with and without depression, alcohol use, and drug use disorders), the PC-PTSD-5 exhibited a sensitivity between 88.89% (95% C.I.: 65.29 - 98.62) and 95.92% (95% C.I.: 86.02 - 99.50), and its specificity varied from 60.00% (95% C.I.: 40.60 - 77.34) to 88.14% (95% C.I.: 84.50 - 91.19).
conclusionsThe PC-PTSD-5, suitable for a diverse range of VA primary care patients, shows satisfactory sensitivity and specificity across various demographic and diagnostic groups. Healthcare providers should be cautious of false positives in patients with depression or substance use disorders, given the potential symptom overlap with PTSD.
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.