SynthesisBMC primary care2025
Screening tools for ruling out mood and anxiety disorders in adults in primary care: a rapid systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPatients with mood and anxiety disorders commonly visit primary care providers in Canada. Screening tools can support providers in identifying patients who need further mental health care.
objectivesIdentify screening tools that are valid and reliable for ruling out mood and anxiety disorders in adults in primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Our rapid review searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo from January 1, 2006, to May 27, 2025. STUDY SELECTION: A single reviewer conducted screening, critical appraisal and data extraction. Low risk-of-bias studies were included. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative likelihood ratios (NLRs) with 95% confidence intervals were extracted or calculated. A threshold of NLR < 0.1 was used to interpret strong rule-out performance. SYNTHESIS: We included 11 low risk-of-bias studies evaluating validity in 13 tools. No reliability studies were included due to high risk-of-bias. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-2 (≥ 1/7), PHQ-9 (≥ 10/17), Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-2 (≥ 2/6), and GAD-7 (≥ 5/21) demonstrated the strongest evidence for ruling out depression and anxiety (NLR < 0.1).
conclusionsThe PHQ-2, PHQ-9, HADS-D, 15-item GDS, QIDS-SR16, GAD-2, and GAD-7 are brief, valid tools with strong rule-out performance for depression and anxiety in primary care. Future research should evaluate reliability and performance in diverse providers and patients, including non-physician settings and underserved communities.
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.