Psycho-oncology · 2018
The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital and Depression Scale (HADS-A) as screening tools for generalized anxiety disorder among cancer patients.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Esser Peter, Hartung Tim J, Friedrich Michael, Johansen Christoffer, Wittchen Hans-Ulrich, Faller Hermann, Koch Uwe, Härter Martin, Keller Monika, Schulz Holger, Wegscheider Karl, Weis Joachim, Mehnert Anja
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Anxiety in cancer patients may represent a normal psychological reaction. To detect patients with pathological levels, appropriate screeners with established cut-offs are needed. Given that previous research is sparse, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of 2 frequently used screening tools in detecting generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
METHODS: We used data of a multicenter study including 2141 cancer patients. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A). GAD, assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology, served as a reference standard. Overall accuracy was measured with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The AUC of the 2 screeners were statistically compared. We also calculated accuracy measures for selected cut-offs.
RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy could be interpreted as adequate for both screeners, with an identical AUC of .81 (95% CI: .79-.82). Consequently, the 2 screeners did not differ in their performance (P = .86). The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found for cut-offs ≥7 (GAD-7) and ≥8 (HADS-A). The officially recommended thresholds for the GAD-7 (≥ 10) and the HADS-A (≥11) showed low sensitivities of 55% and 48%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 and HADS-A showed AUC of adequate diagnostic accuracy and hence are applicable for GAD screening in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the choice of optimal cut-offs should be carefully evaluated.
METHODS: We used data of a multicenter study including 2141 cancer patients. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) and the anxiety module of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A). GAD, assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview for Oncology, served as a reference standard. Overall accuracy was measured with the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The AUC of the 2 screeners were statistically compared. We also calculated accuracy measures for selected cut-offs.
RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy could be interpreted as adequate for both screeners, with an identical AUC of .81 (95% CI: .79-.82). Consequently, the 2 screeners did not differ in their performance (P = .86). The best balance between sensitivity and specificity was found for cut-offs ≥7 (GAD-7) and ≥8 (HADS-A). The officially recommended thresholds for the GAD-7 (≥ 10) and the HADS-A (≥11) showed low sensitivities of 55% and 48%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The GAD-7 and HADS-A showed AUC of adequate diagnostic accuracy and hence are applicable for GAD screening in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the choice of optimal cut-offs should be carefully evaluated.