Premium
DETECTION OF ANXIETY DISORDERS IN PRIMARY CARE: A META‐ANALYSIS OF ASSISTED AND UNASSISTED DIAGNOSES
Author(s) -
Olariu Elena,
Forero Carlos G.,
CastroRodriguez Jose Ignacio,
RodrigoCalvo Maria Teresa,
Álvarez Pilar,
MartínLópez Luis M.,
SánchezToto Alicia,
Adroher Núria D.,
BlascoCubedo Maria J.,
Vilagut Gemma,
Fullana Miquel A.,
Alonso Jordi
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
depression and anxiety
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.634
H-Index - 129
eISSN - 1520-6394
pISSN - 1091-4269
DOI - 10.1002/da.22360
Subject(s) - medicine , psycinfo , meta analysis , anxiety , medical diagnosis , medline , generalized anxiety disorder , psychiatry , pathology , political science , law
Background Evidence suggests that general practitioners (GPs) fail to diagnose up to half of common mental disorder cases. Yet no previous research has systematically summarized the evidence in the case of anxiety disorders. The aim of this review was to systematically assess and meta‐analyze the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ assisted (i.e., using severity scales/diagnostic instruments) and unassisted (without such tools) diagnoses of anxiety disorders. Methods Systematic review (PROSPERO registry CRD42013006736) was conducted. Embase, Ovid Journals – Ovid SP Medline, Pubmed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were searched from January 1980 through June 2014. Seven investigators, working in pairs, evaluated studies for eligibility. The quality of included studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool version 2 (QUADAS‐2). The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnoses of any anxiety disorder. We pooled sensitivity and specificity levels from included studies using bivariate meta‐analyses. Results Twenty‐four studies were included in the meta‐analysis with a total sample of 34,902 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 44.5% (95% CI 33.7–55.9%) and 90.8% (95% CI 87–93.5%). GPs’ sensitivity was higher when diagnoses were assisted (63.6%, 95% CI 50.3–75.1%) than when unassisted (30.5%, 95% CI 20.7–42.5%) to the expense of some specificity loss (87.9%, 95% CI 81.3–92.4% vs. 91.4%, 95% CI 86.6–94.6%, respectively). Identification rates remained constant over time ( P ‐value = .998). Conclusions The use of diagnostic tools might improve detection of anxiety disorders in “primary care.”