Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Diagnostic Accuracy of Mental Health Screening Tools After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Action Collaborative on Traumatic Brain Injury Care: Adapted Clinical Practice Guideline.Annals of family medicine · 2025Guideline
- Article
- Diagnosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Narrative Review of Advances in Neuroimaging and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2026Review
- Real-world efficacy of transfusion with liberal or restrictive strategy in traumatic brain injury.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- Impact of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury on Sleep Patterns in Younger Individuals: A Systematic Review.Neurotrauma reports · 2025Review
- IGF-1 as a Biomarker for Symptom Severity in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: Evidence from an Observational Study.Neurotrauma reports · 2025Article
- Prior Psychiatric Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress, Depressive and Anxiety Disorder after Traumatic Brain Injury with Glasgow Coma Scale Score 13-15: A TRACK-TBI Study.Neurotrauma reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Mental health disorders are common after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and likely exacerbate postconcussive symptoms and disability. Early detection could improve clinical outcomes, but the accuracy of mental health screening tools in this population has not been well established. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalizaed Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and Primary Care PTSD (Posttramatic Stress Disorder) Screen for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) (PC-PTSD-5) in adults with mTBI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was performed as a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial. Self-report mental health screening tools (PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PC-PTSD-5) were administered online 12 weeks after mTBI and compared against a structured psychodiagnostic interview (Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for DSM-5 (MINI) over videoconference at the same time. Adults with mTBI (N = 537) were recruited from February 1, 2021, to October 25, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of a major depressive episode, anxiety disorders, and PTSD were determined by a blinded assessor with the MINI. Diagnostic accuracy statistics were derived for the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PC-PTSD-5. Findings were disaggregated for participants with and without persistent postconcussion symptoms (PPCS) by International and Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision criteria. Results: Data were available for 499 of 537 trial participants, 278 (55.7%) of whom were female; the mean (SD) age was 38.8 (13.9) years. Each screening questionnaire had strong diagnostic accuracy in the overall sample for optimal cut points (area under the curve [AUC], ≥0.80; sensitivity, 0.55-0.94; specificity, 0.64-0.94). The AUC (difference of 0.01-0.13) and specificity (difference, 5-65 percentage points) were lower in those with PPCS present compared with PPCS absent, but the prevalence of at least 1 mental health disorder was 3 to 5 times higher in patients with PPCS present. The GAD-7 had slightly better performance than the PC-PTSD-5 for detecting PTSD (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.89] vs 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72-0.87]). The optimal cutoff on the PHQ-9 was 5 or more symptoms experienced on more than half of days; on the GAD-7, a total score of at least 7. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PC-PTSD-5 accurately screen for mental health disorders in patients with mTBI. Future research should corroborate optimal test cutoffs for this population.
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.