CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

Low stability of diagnostic classifications of anxiety disorders over time: A six-year follow-up of the NESDA study

Hovenkamp-Hermelink, Johanna HM, Riese, Harriëtte, van der Veen, Date C, Batelaan, Neeltje M, Penninx, Brenda WJH, Schoevers, Robert A·2016·Journal of Affective Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Stability of diagnosis was listed as an important predictive validator for maintaining separate diagnostic classifications in DSM-5. The aim of this study is to examine the longitudinal stability of anxiety disorder diagnoses, and the difference in stability between subjects with a chronic versus a non-chronic course. Methods Longitudinal data of 447 subjects with a current pure anxiety disorder diagnosis at baseline from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety were used. At baseline, 2-, 4-, and 6-year follow-up mental disorders were assessed and numbers (and percentages) of transitions from one anxiety disorder diagnosis to another were determined for each anxiety disorder diagnosis separately and for subjects with a chronic (i.e. one or more anxiety disorder at every follow-up assessment) and a non-chronic course. Results Transition percentages were high in all anxiety disorder diagnoses, ranging from 21.1% for social anxiety disorder to 46.3% for panic disorder with agoraphobia at six years of follow-up. Transition numbers were higher in the chronic than in the non-chronic course group (p=0.01). Limitations Due to the 2 year sample frequency, the number of subjects with a chronic course may have been overestimated as intermittent recovery periods may have been missed. Conclusions These data indicate that anxiety disorder diagnoses are not stable over time. The validity of the different anxiety disorder categories is not supported by these longitudinal p…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.035

Cites

6 of 6 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hovenkamp-Hermelink, J. H., Riese, H., van der Veen, D. C., Batelaan, N. M., Penninx, B. W., & Schoevers, R. A.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
190
Pages
310-315
ISSN
0165-0327
DOI
10.1016/j.jad.2015.10.035
Cited by
40
References
6
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Funders
Geestkracht Program (10-000-1002)

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