Key result
Self-assessment questionnaires for anxiety and depression show limited diagnostic accuracy versus clinical psychiatric evaluation.
Why the study?
Do self-report questionnaires (GAD-7 and HADS) accurately reflect the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders compared to clinical assessment by a psychiatrist in Moscow residents?
Population
1,097 individuals aged 18 to 65 years, living in Moscow, Russia, without psychiatric disorders, median age…
Comparison
Self-report questionnaires (HADS and GAD-7) vs Clinical assessment by a psychiatrist
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Questionnaires may misclassify anxiety and depression prevalence in community samples; leaves open their utility pending local validation against clinical standards.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,097)
Do self-report questionnaires (GAD-7 and HADS) accurately reflect the prevalence of anxiety and depressive disorders compared to clinical assessment by a psychiatrist in Moscow residents?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 61% and specificity 73% for HADS-D; Sensitivity 58% and specificity 59% for HADS-A/GAD-7
Self-assessment questionnaires for anxiety and depression showed moderate sensitivity and specificity compared to clinical psychiatric evaluation, suggesting they may not fully reflect the true clinical state.
Savenkova et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Anxiety and depressive disorders (n=1,097). Self-report questionnaires (GAD-7 and HADS) vs. Clinical assessment by a psychiatrist was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of self-report questionnaires compared to clinical assessment (Sensitivity 61% and specificity 73% for HADS-D; Sensitivity 58% and specificity 59% for HADS-A/GAD-7). Self-assessment questionnaires for anxiety and depression showed limited diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical psychiatric evaluation, with sensitivity of 58-61% and specificity of 59-73%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: