Cited by 231Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Addressing overestimation of the prevalence of depression based on self-report screening questionnaires

Open access
Thombs, Brett D., Kwakkenbos, Linda, Levis, Alexander W., Benedetti, Andrea·2018·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

KEY POINTS Mental health disorders, including major depressive disorder, are classified in research using validated diagnostic interviews.[1][1],[2][2] However, administering diagnostic interviews to large population samples to estimate prevalence is expensive because of the time and trained

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.170691

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • The prevalence of psychopathological syndromes is overestimated on the basis of self-report questionnaires.

    “Studies have shown on several occasions that the prevalence of psychopathological syndromes is overestimated on the basis of self-report questionnaires (Scott et al., 2023;Thombs et al., 2018)”

    From Suicide Crisis Syndrome: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Thombs et al., 2018

    The Key Points say that treating above-cutoff scores on depression screening questionnaires as disorder prevalence substantially overestimates prevalence. The implications section also says screening questionnaires can distort disorder prevalence estimates. The paper establishes this chiefly for depression, not for psychopathological syndromes generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thombs, B. D., Kwakkenbos, L., Levis, A. W., & Benedetti, A.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2018-01-14
Volume
190
Issue
2
Pages
E44-E49
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2782891479
Cited by
231
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
24.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
depression prevalence, prevalence overestimation, major depressive disorder, diagnostic interview, screening validity, mental illness
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depression, Depressive Disorder, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Mass Screening, Sensitivity and Specificity, Prevalence, Self Report

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