Cited by 53Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentSchizophrenia research and treatmentReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Test–retest reliability of schizoaffective disorder compared with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and unipolar depression—a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Santelmann, Hanno, Franklin, Jeremy, Bußhoff, Jana, Baethge, Christopher·2015·Bipolar Disorders

Abstract

Objectives: Schizoaffective disorder is a frequent diagnosis, and its reliability is subject to ongoing discussion. We compared the diagnostic reliability of schizoaffective disorder with its main differential diagnoses. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo for all studies on the test–retest reliability of the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder as compared with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and unipolar depression. We used meta‐analytic methods to describe and compare Cohen's kappa as well as positive and negative agreement. In addition, multiple pre‐specified and post hoc subgroup and sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results: Out of 4,415 studies screened, 49 studies were included. Test–retest reliability of schizoaffective disorder was consistently lower than that of schizophrenia (in 39 out of 42 studies), bipolar disorder (27/33), and unipolar depression (29/35). The mean difference in kappa between schizoaffective disorder and the other diagnoses was approximately 0.2, and mean Cohen's kappa for schizoaffective disorder was 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.40–0.59). While findings were unequivocal and homogeneous for schizoaffective disorder's diagnostic reliability relative to its three main differential diagnoses (dichotomous: smaller versus larger), heterogeneity was substantial for continuous measures, even after subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In clinical practice and research, schizoaffective disorder's comparatively low diagnostic reliability should lead to increased efforts to correctly diagnose the disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bdi.12340

Cites

90 of 90 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
Santelmann, H., Franklin, J., Bußhoff, J., & Baethge, C.
Affiliations
University of Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
Baethge, Christopher
Venue
Bipolar Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-26
Volume
17
Issue
7
Pages
753-768
ISSN
  • 1398-5647 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-5618
OpenAlex
W1867708229
Cited by
53
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bipolar Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
schizoaffective disorder, test-retest reliability, diagnostic reliability, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, differential diagnosis, diagnostic agreement, kappa statistic
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, 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