SynthesisThe European journal of general practice2024
Screening tools assessing mental illness in primary care: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The European journal of general practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring transdiagnostic factors for mental health screening in primary care: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled pilot study.BMC research notes · 2026Trial
- Evaluating the global psychotrauma screen total score using item response theory in an Italian community sample.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Long-Term Cognitive and Functional Outcomes of Anesthesia and Surgery in Patients with Dementia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Maladaptive Personality Traits in Primary Care: Validation of the German Modified Brief Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5BF + M).Assessment · 2026Article
- Symptoms of depression, suicidal ideation, and personality traits in a sample of medical students: a cross-sectional study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- What does psychopathology research have to gain by studying all mental disorders at the same time?Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2026Article
- Identifying predictors of student depression through validated machine learning pipelines.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A novel CAT method for QoL screening: proof-of-principle study with comparisons to standard methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo better manage patients with a wide range of mental health problems, general practitioners would benefit from diagnostically accurate and time-efficient screening tools that comprehensively assess mental illness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to identify screening tools that either take a multiple-mental disorder or a transdiagnostic approach. As primary and secondary outcomes, diagnostic accuracy and time efficiency were investigated.
methodsThe data bases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Psyndex and PsycINFO were searched. Studies reporting on multiple-mental disorder or transdiagnostic screening tools used in primary care with adult patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value served as measures of diagnostic accuracy. Time efficiency was evaluated by the number of items of a screening tool and the time required for its completion and evaluation.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of screening tools assessed multiple mental disorders separately. A sub-group of screening tools took a transdiagnostic approach by examining the spectrum of mood, anxiety and stress-related disorders. One screening tool used internalised, cognitive/somatic and externalised dysfunction as transdiagnostic domains of mental illness. Mostly, a sufficient sensitivity and specificity was reported. All screening tools were found to be time efficient.
conclusionThe eleven identified screening tools can support general practitioners to identify patients with mental health problems. However, there was great heterogeneity concerning their diagnostic scope of psychopathology. Further screening tools for primary care are needed that target broad constructs of mental illness, such as transdiagnostic factors or personality dysfunction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.