SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Validated Tools for Assessing Anxiety and Depression in Nurses: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial working conditions and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among nurses: A cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Article
- Psychosomatic interplay in postmenopausal osteoporosis: from neuroendocrine mechanisms to structured psychological therapies and long-term management.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- MOODMIND: A Pilot Feasibility Study of Artificial Intelligence for Major Depressive Disorder Screening in Tuberculosis Patients.F1000Research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses experience substantial anxiety and depression; robust, validated instruments are needed. We aimed to identify tools used to assess these conditions in nurses.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in December 2024 and registered in OSF and PROSPERO. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for quantitative studies (2014-2024) in English/Spanish that included nurses only and used standardized measures. Two reviewers screened and extracted the data; quality was appraised with JBI checklists, narrative synthesis only.
resultsTwenty-two studies (n = 10,710 nurses) met the criteria. Most were cross-sectional with non-probability sampling; the overall risk of bias was moderate in 19 studies and high in 3. The most frequently used instruments were PHQ-9, GAD-7, GHQ-28, and BDI; across versions, PHQ (PHQ-2/PHQ-9) predominated. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: The available tools support routine screening in nursing populations, but reliance on self-reports and scarce formal cross-cultural validation in practicing nurses limit inference and generalizability.
conclusionsScreening programs in nursing should pair brief self-report instruments with objective indicators and standardized protocols; future studies should prioritize contextualized validation and robust longitudinal designs.
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.