4.5 Article

Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: a systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 24-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.11.005

关键词

Anxiety; Generalised anxiety disorder; Diagnostic test accuracy; Systematic review; Sensitivity and specificity

资金

  1. Department of Health Sciences at the University of York
  2. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2012-03-002] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To systematically review the accuracy of the GAD-7 and GAD-2 questionnaires for identifying anxiety disorders. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies that validated the GAD-7 or GAD-2 against a recognized gold standard diagnosis. Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy were produced using random-effects bivariate metaanalysis. Heterogeneity was explored using the I-2 statistic. Results: A total of 12 samples were identified involving 5223 participants; 11 samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-7 for identifying generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff point of 8 [sensitivity: 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.91), specificity: 0.84 (95% CI 0.70-0.92)] although cutoff scores 7-10 also had similar pooled estimates of sensitivity/specificity. Six samples provided data on the accuracy of the GAD-2 for identifying GAD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity values appeared acceptable at a cutoff of 3 [sensitivity: 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-0.89), specificity: 0.81 (95% CI 0.60-0.92)]. Four studies looked at the accuracy of the questionnaires for identifying any anxiety disorder. Conclusions: The GAD-7 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at cutoff scores 7-10. The GAD-2 had acceptable properties for identifying GAD at a cutoff score of 3. Further validation studies are needed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据