SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of mental health screening tools applicable to adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mental health disorders (MHDs) is a global public health concern. Existing evidence highlighted the need for context-specific measurements of MHDs among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This review aimed to provide an evidence-based inventory of effective mental health (MH) screening tools applicable to adolescents in SSA aged 12-18 years. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for validation studies of MH screening tools published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2024. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Results: Out of the 18,918 screened articles, 128 studies (covering 26 MHDs) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 60% (77/128) were rated high risk of bias on at least one domain of the QUADAS-2 tool. Only 21 of 48 SSA countries validated at least one screening tool. The meta-analysis included 36 articles evaluating four tools-Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)/two-step PHQ-9 (PHQ-2/9), two-item PHQ (PHQ-2), or Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10)-which focused on depression only. Heterogeneity was present across validation studies for all tools in the meta-analyses. Both Deeks' test and visual assessment of funnel plots did not suggest publication bias for EPDS and PHQ-9/PHQ-2/9. Discussion: Prioritizing the validation of mental health screening tools tailored to adolescents aged 12-18 years is crucial to effectively address the MHDs in SSA. Future research in SSA should focus on adapting and validating existing tools, updating outdated versions, and developing new tools for emerging mental health challenges. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023454180.
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.