Cited by 374Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: A diagnostic meta-analysis of case-finding ability

Brennan, Cathy, Worrall-Davies, Anne, McMillan, Dean, Gilbody, Simon, House, Allan·2010·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective To quantify the accuracy of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as a case-finding instrument for anxiety and depressive disorders.Method MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, and AMED were searched from January 1983 to June 2006. Studies were included that administered the HADS, used a standardized psychiatric interview to establish a diagnosis of anxiety or depression, and provided sufficient data on sensitivity and specificity (N=41). Summary sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated for each study. Random effects meta-analytic pooling across studies at the recommended clinical (7/8) and research (10/11) cutoff points was undertaken and summary receiver operating characteristic curves constructed.Results For major depressive disorders, a cut point of ≥8 gave a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.89) and a specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.84) and a cut point ≥11 gave a sensitivity of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.40-0.71) and a specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79-0.97).Conclusions Many studies have shown that the HADS is a useful screening tool to identify emotional distress in nonpsychiatric patients. However, it does not appear to be superior to other screening instruments in terms of identifying specific mental disorders in physical health settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.04.006

Cites

55 of 55 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
Brennan, C., Worrall-Davies, A., McMillan, D., Gilbody, S., & House, A.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Brennan, Cathy
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
371-378
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017953368
Cited by
374
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 19
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, case finding, screening accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic, cut-off values
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sensitivity and Specificity, Odds Ratio

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