Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 826

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients: A multicenter evaluation of the Distress Thermometer

Open access
Jacobsen, Paul B., Donovan, Kristine A., Trask, Peter C., Fleishman, Stewart B., Zabora, James, Baker, Frank, Holland, Jimmie C.·2005·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Based on evidence that psychologic distress often goes unrecognized although it is common among cancer patients, clinical practice guidelines recommend routine screening for distress. For this study, the authors sought to determine whether the single‐item Distress Thermometer (DT) compared favorably with longer measures currently used to screen for distress. METHODS: Patients (n = 380) who were recruited from 5 sites completed the DT and identified the presence or absence of 34 problems using a standardized list. Participants also completed the 14‐item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and an 18‐item version of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI‐18), both of which have established cutoff scores for identifying clinically significant distress. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of DT scores yielded area under the curve estimates relative to the HADS cutoff score (0.80) and the BSI‐18 cutoff scores (0.78) indicative of good overall accuracy. ROC analyses also showed that a DT cutoff score of 4 had optimal sensitivity and specificity relative to both the HADS and BSI‐18 cutoff scores. Additional analyses indicated that, compared with patients who had DT scores < 4, patients who had DT scores ≥ 4 were more likely to be women, have a poorer performance status, and report practical, family, emotional, and physical problems (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm that the single‐item DT compares favorably with longer measures used to screen for distress. A DT cutoff score of 4 yielded optimal sensitivity and specificity in a general cancer population relative to established cutoff scores on longer measures. The use of this cutoff score identified patients with a range of problems that were likely to reflect psychologic distress. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.20940

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 826

Metadata

Authors
Jacobsen, P. B., Donovan, K. A., Trask, P. C., Fleishman, S. B., Zabora, J., Baker, F., & Holland, J. C.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02-22
Volume
103
Issue
7
Pages
1494-1502
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1526638498
Cited by
826
References
9
FWCI
11.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients: A multicenter evaluation of the Distress Thermometer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.20940
The paper
Jacobsen, P. B., Donovan, K. A., Trask, P. C., Fleishman, S. B., Zabora, J., Baker, F., & Holland, J. C. (2005). Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients: A multicenter evaluation of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20940

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.