Cited by 83Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsBipolar Disorder and TreatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

A Review of 20 Years of Research on Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis in the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project

Open access
Zimmerman, Mark·2016·The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

The Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project represents an integration of research methodology into a community-based outpatient practice affiliated with an academic medical centre. The MIDAS project is the largest clinical epidemiological study using semi-structured interviews to assess a wide range of psychiatric disorders in a general clinical outpatient practice. In an early report from the MIDAS project, we found that across diagnostic categories clinicians using unstandardized, unstructured clinical interviews underrecognized diagnostic comorbidity, compared with the results of semi-structured interviews. Moreover, we found that the patients often wanted treatment for symptoms of disorders that were diagnosed as comorbid, rather than principal, conditions. This highlighted the importance, from the patient’s perspective, of conducting thorough diagnostic interviews to diagnose disorders that are not related to the patient’s chief complaint because patients often desire treatment for these additional diagnoses. While several of the initial papers from the MIDAS project identified problems with the detection of comorbid disorders in clinical practice, regarding the diagnosis of bipolar disorder we observed the emergence of an opposite phenomenon—clinician overdiagnosis. The results from the MIDAS project, along with other studies of diagnosis in routine clinical practice, have brought to the forefront the problem with diagnosis in routine clinical practice. An important question is what do these findings suggest about the community standard of care in making psychiatric diagnoses, and whether and how the standard of care should be changed? The implications are discussed.

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 · 10.1177/0706743715625935

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Pfohl B, Blum N, Zimmerman M. Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality. Washington (DC): American Psychiatric Press, Inc; 1997.
  2. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI. The reliability and validity of a screening questionnaire for 14 DSM-IV axis I disorder (The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire). J Clin Psy- chiatry. 1999;60:677-683.
  3. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Chelminski I, et al. Is bipolar dis- order overdiagnosed? J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69:935-940.
  4. Zimmerman M, Ruggero CJ, Chelminski I, et al. Psychiatric diagnoses in patients previoulsy overdiagnosed with bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71:26-31.
  5. Zimmerman M, Galione J. Psychiatrists' and nonpsychiatrist physician's reported use of the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71:235-238.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zimmerman, M.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Zimmerman, Mark
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2016-01-26
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
71-79
ISSN
  • 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1497-0015
OpenAlex
W2309166653
Cited by
83
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, psychiatric comorbidity, diagnostic interview, semi-structured interviews, bipolar disorder, standard of care, patient preferences, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Medical Overuse, Mental Disorders, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Psychiatry, Comorbidity

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