MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207482873 · doi:10.1111/acem.14394

Depression and anxiety screening in emergency department patients with recurrent abdominal pain: An evidence synthesis for a clinical practice guideline

2021· review· en· W3207482873 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Oliveira J. e Silva, Steven Prakken, Andrew C. Meltzer, Joshua Broder, Dana Gerberi, Suneel Upadhye, Christopher R. Carpenter, Fernanda Bellolio

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSociety for Academic Emergency Medicine
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAbdominal painDepression (economics)AnxietyOdds ratioGuidelineConfidence intervalInternal medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207