ArticleBMC psychology2026
Diagnostic discrepancy between patient-reported outcomes and clinical assessment: a critical validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in Syrian cancer patients.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe escalating psychosocial burden is critically amplified in conflict zones such as Syria, with cancer patients already in need of critical psychological care to distinguish between somatic and psychiatric dimensions of their state, overwhelmed by the extreme environmental pressures of the war. This creates a challenge for both patients and physicians, severely hindering effective diagnosis, treatment, and care.
aimsThis study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anxiety and depression among Syrian cancer patients and validate the compatibility between Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)- the gold standard of clinical diagnosis.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 101 patients with cancer at specialised centres in Damascus. Participants were assessed using the self-reported HADS, where the researcher was blinded to the participants' scores to eliminate bias. Then followed by independent clinical interviews conducted by another specialist based on the DSM-5 criteria.
resultsThe HADS-D identified a high prevalence of depression (54.5%), significantly exceeding the clinical diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (22.8%) via the DSM-5. While the anxiety subscale (HADS-A) demonstrated moderate and acceptable agreement with clinical findings (Cramer's V = .329, P = .001), the depression subscale (HADS-D) revealed a striking systematic discrepancy, indicated by a negative Cohen's Kappa value of -0.085 (P = .031). High depression scores were significantly associated with older age (> 55 years), whereas no demographic or clinical variables showed significant correlations with independent clinical diagnoses.
conclusionThe findings highlight a "methodological failure" of the HADS-D in differentiating between somatic cancer symptoms and true psychological distress within the Syrian cultural and crisis context. This study cautions against the exclusive reliance on traditional self-report screening tools in such settings and underscores the vital necessity of expert clinical interviews (DSM-5) to ensure diagnostic accuracy in psycho-oncology.
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.