Cited by 119Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Defining anxious depression: a review of the literature

Open access
Ionescu, Dawn F., Niciu, Mark J., Henter, Ioline D., Zarate, Carlos A.·2013·CNS Spectrums

Abstract

The diagnosis of anxious depression is presently inconsistent. The many different definitions of anxious depression have complicated its diagnosis, leading to clinical confusion and inconsistencies in the literature. This article reviewed the extant literature in order to identify the varying definitions of anxious depression, which were then compared using Feighner's diagnostic criteria. Notably, these suggest a different clinical picture of patients with anxious depression. For instance, relying on The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnoses yields a clinical picture of a comparatively mild or transient disorder; in contrast, using dimensional criteria such as DSM criteria combined with additional rating scales—most commonly the anxiety somatization factor score from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D)—yields a more serious clinical picture. The evidence reviewed here suggests that defining anxious depression in a dimensional manner may be the most useful and clinically relevant way of differentiating it from other types of mood and anxiety disorders, and of highlighting the most clinically significant differences between patients with anxious depression versus depression or anxiety alone.

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 · 10.1017/s1092852913000114

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Anxious depression is present in approximately half of the MDD population.

    “Anxious depression is present in approximately half of the MDD population and is commonly defined either syndromally (i.e., co-occurring MDD and anxiety disorder diagnoses) or using 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale Depression (HRSD17) criteria (i.e., MDD diagnosis and an HRSD17 anxiety/somatisation factor score of ≥7 [9–11]).”
  • The term anxious depression has been used interchangeably in recent literature to denote three common dichotomous anxiety-depression definitions: MDD with a comorbid full-blown anxiety disorder, MDD with anxiety symptoms measured as an above-cutoff score on an anxiety severity scale, and MDD with the DSM-5 anxious distress specifier.

    “Generally, the term 'anxious depression' has been used interchangeably in recent literature to denote three common dichotomous anxiety-depression definitions: major depressive disorder (MDD) with a comorbid full-blown anxiety disorder, MDD with anxiety symptoms measured as an above cutoff score on an anxiety severity scale [2], and MDD with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”
  • Various scales and different cutoff points to determine relevant anxiety symptoms have been used, resulting in heterogeneity in the dimensional definition of anxious depression.

    “However, various scales and different cutoff points to determine relevant anxiety symptoms have been used, resulting in heterogeneity in the dimensional definition as well [2,3].”
  • Various definitions for anxious depression are used across studies, making results not always directly comparable.

    “Consequently, various definitions for anxious depression are being used across studies, making results not always directly comparable.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ionescu, D. F., Niciu, M. J., Henter, I. D., & Zarate, C. A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Ionescu, Dawn F.
Venue
CNS Spectrums
Published
2013-03-14
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
252-260
ISSN
  • 1092-8529 (ISSN-L)
  • 2165-6509
OpenAlex
W2143273593
Cited by
119
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CNS Spectrums (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 MH999999)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
anxious depression, diagnostic criteria, dimensional assessment, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, ICD, DSM, mood disorders, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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