Cited by 394Cancer survivorship and careAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Diagnostic validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in cancer and palliative settings: A meta-analysis

Mitchell, Alex J., Meader, Nick, Symonds, Paul·2010·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Objective To examine the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the identification of psychiatric complications of cancer, as defined by a robust criterion standard.Methods 50 analyses tested the depression subscale (HADS-D), anxiety subscale (HADS-A) or combined scales (HADS-T) against syndromal (clinical) depression (n=22), syndromal anxiety (n=4) or any mental ill health/distress (n=24), all defined by semi-structured psychiatric interview.Results The HADS and its subscales had both strengths and limitations. Overall it appeared to perform marginally better in non-palliative cancer settings. Specific findings for each subscale were as follows. In the identification of depression the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 82.0%, 77.0%; 71.6%, 82.6% and 80.5%, 77.8%, respectively. All versions performed poorly in case-finding but well in a screening capacity. For anxiety there were no HADS-D studies. The HADS-T and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83.9%, 69.9% and 48.7%, 78.7%. They were poor at case-finding but good as screening instruments. For distress (any mental ill health) the HADS-T, HADS-D and HADS-A had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 72.8%, 80.6%; 75.7%, 66.3% and 65.7%, 71.3%, respectively. When screening for distress and anxiety the HADS-T was the optimal subscale.Conclusion For the identification of depression, anxiety or distress in cancer settings, the HADS (including subscales) is not recommended as a case-finding instrument but it may, subject to concerns about its length, be a suitable addition to screening programme.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2010.01.067

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mitchell, A. J., Meader, N., & Symonds, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Mitchell, Alex J.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
126
Issue
3
Pages
335-348
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108265793
Cited by
394
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 21
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, diagnostic validity, cancer-related depression, cancer-related anxiety, palliative care, psychiatric distress, screening tool, case finding, sensitivity and specificity, mental health screening
MeSH terms
Adjustment Disorders, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Hospitalization, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Mass Screening, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

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