Observational studyParkinsonism & related disorders2025
Diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression and anxiety in cervical dystonia.
Observational study in Parkinsonism & related disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence and treatment effects on non-motor symptoms in cervical dystonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDespite their high prevalence and impact, depression and anxiety are not routinely screened for, and accuracy of screening procedures is unknown in adult-onset dystonia. We evaluated accuracy parameters of selected self-rated scales for depression and anxiety in patients with idiopathic cervical dystonia (CD).
methodsTwo-hundred-and-ten patients with idiopathic CD were recruited from 10 movement disorders centers from the US, Canada, Australia, and UK. At the end of each botulinum toxin cycle, participants were administered the Adult Standard Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as reference standard for depression and anxiety. Participants completed 8 self-administered index instruments (2 for depression, 2 for anxiety, and 4 combining screening for both). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and likelihood ratios were calculated for all instruments.
resultsOn the MINI, 8.6 % (100 % female) fulfilled criteria for current major depressive disorder and 10.5 % (91 % female) fulfilled criteria for any current disorder amongst panic, social anxiety or generalized anxiety disorders. For depression screening, all tools had an AUC higher than 0.80, with the two most accurate being the BDI-II (AUC 0.91, sensitivity 87.5 %) and the HADS-Depression (AUC 0.88, sensitivity 93.7 %). For anxiety screening, the only instrument showing clinical usefulness was the HADS-Anxiety (AUC 0.82, sensitivity 86.3 %).
conclusionCurrent major depression can be screened in CD with high degree of accuracy using different self-administered scales, whereas existing screening tools for anxiety perform worse. Dystonia-specific instruments are less accurate than scales developed for the general 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.