ArticleEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2026
Tools used to estimate the prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder in populations: a scoping review.
Article in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2026. 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.
- Association of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and inflammatory indices with cardiometabolic multimorbidity.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsGeneralized anxiety disorder (GAD) is characterized by persistent worry and physical symptoms, with prevalence estimates ranging from 0.8% to 8%. Researchers utilize various tools, such as standardized diagnostic interviews and self-report questionnaires, to estimate GAD prevalence in population-level studies. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tools varies greatly. This scoping review aimed to identify the tools used for GAD prevalence estimation and assess the extent to which diagnostic tool accuracy is reported.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO using MeSH terms and keywords related to GAD prevalence. No date restrictions were applied. Studies were eligible if they used nationally or regionally representative samples and defined GAD based on DSM-5, ICD-11 or older case definitions. Studies focusing solely on specific sub-groups were excluded. Data extraction included study characteristics, diagnostic tools and reporting of test accuracy.
resultsA total of 537 studies were initially identified, with 48 meeting inclusion criteria, published between 1994 and 2024. Most studies were conducted in Europe (43.75%) and employed cross-sectional designs (92%). Structured diagnostic interviews were the most commonly used tool (77.08%), although self-report questionnaires gained popularity after 2005. Among the included studies, 62.5% reported test accuracy, often addressing validity and reliability.
conclusionsDespite the widespread use of diagnostic tools in prevalence studies, test accuracy is not consistently reported, which may impact the reliability of prevalence estimates. The variability in agreement between self-report questionnaires and structured diagnostic interviews highlights the need for transparent reporting of test characteristics to improve the validity of GAD prevalence assessments across populations.
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.