Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis

ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Jinya Cao [verfasserIn] Jing Wei [verfasserIn] Kurt Fritzsche [verfasserIn] Anne Christin Toussaint [verfasserIn] Tao Li [verfasserIn] Lan Zhang [verfasserIn] Yaoyin Zhang [verfasserIn] Hua Chen [verfasserIn] Heng Wu [verfasserIn] Xiquan Ma [verfasserIn] Wentian Li [verfasserIn] Jie Ren [verfasserIn] Wei Lu [verfasserIn] Rainer Leonhart [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Frontiers in Psychiatry - Frontiers Media S.A., 2010, 13(2022)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:13 ; year:2022

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ086838431

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ086838431
003	DE-627
005	20230311053929.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ086838431
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC435-571
100	0		\|a Jinya Cao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.
650		4	\|a somatic symptom disorder
650		4	\|a PHQ-15
650		4	\|a SSS-8
650		4	\|a SSD-12
650		4	\|a WI-8
653		0	\|a Psychiatry
700	0		\|a Jing Wei \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kurt Fritzsche \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Anne Christin Toussaint \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tao Li \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Lan Zhang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yaoyin Zhang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hua Chen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Heng Wu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Xiquan Ma \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wentian Li \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jie Ren \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wei Lu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rainer Leonhart \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Frontiers in Psychiatry \|d Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 \|g 13(2022) \|w (DE-627)631498796 \|w (DE-600)2564218-2 \|x 16640640 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:13 \|g year:2022
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 13 \|j 2022

Indexfelder

author_variant	j c jc j w jw k f kf a c t act t l tl l z lz y z yz h c hc h w hw x m xm w l wl j r jr w l wl r l rl
matchkey_str	article:16640640:2022----::eetndmsmtcypodsreignrloptliciacieiisrmnhse
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 doi (DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC435-571 Jinya Cao verfasserin aut Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry Jing Wei verfasserin aut Kurt Fritzsche verfasserin aut Anne Christin Toussaint verfasserin aut Tao Li verfasserin aut Lan Zhang verfasserin aut Yaoyin Zhang verfasserin aut Hua Chen verfasserin aut Heng Wu verfasserin aut Xiquan Ma verfasserin aut Wentian Li verfasserin aut Jie Ren verfasserin aut Wei Lu verfasserin aut Rainer Leonhart verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 13(2022) (DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2 16640640 nnns volume:13 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2022
spelling	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 doi (DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC435-571 Jinya Cao verfasserin aut Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry Jing Wei verfasserin aut Kurt Fritzsche verfasserin aut Anne Christin Toussaint verfasserin aut Tao Li verfasserin aut Lan Zhang verfasserin aut Yaoyin Zhang verfasserin aut Hua Chen verfasserin aut Heng Wu verfasserin aut Xiquan Ma verfasserin aut Wentian Li verfasserin aut Jie Ren verfasserin aut Wei Lu verfasserin aut Rainer Leonhart verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 13(2022) (DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2 16640640 nnns volume:13 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2022
allfields_unstemmed	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 doi (DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC435-571 Jinya Cao verfasserin aut Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry Jing Wei verfasserin aut Kurt Fritzsche verfasserin aut Anne Christin Toussaint verfasserin aut Tao Li verfasserin aut Lan Zhang verfasserin aut Yaoyin Zhang verfasserin aut Hua Chen verfasserin aut Heng Wu verfasserin aut Xiquan Ma verfasserin aut Wentian Li verfasserin aut Jie Ren verfasserin aut Wei Lu verfasserin aut Rainer Leonhart verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 13(2022) (DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2 16640640 nnns volume:13 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2022
allfieldsGer	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 doi (DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC435-571 Jinya Cao verfasserin aut Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry Jing Wei verfasserin aut Kurt Fritzsche verfasserin aut Anne Christin Toussaint verfasserin aut Tao Li verfasserin aut Lan Zhang verfasserin aut Yaoyin Zhang verfasserin aut Hua Chen verfasserin aut Heng Wu verfasserin aut Xiquan Ma verfasserin aut Wentian Li verfasserin aut Jie Ren verfasserin aut Wei Lu verfasserin aut Rainer Leonhart verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 13(2022) (DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2 16640640 nnns volume:13 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2022
allfieldsSound	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 doi (DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC435-571 Jinya Cao verfasserin aut Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden. somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry Jing Wei verfasserin aut Kurt Fritzsche verfasserin aut Anne Christin Toussaint verfasserin aut Tao Li verfasserin aut Lan Zhang verfasserin aut Yaoyin Zhang verfasserin aut Hua Chen verfasserin aut Heng Wu verfasserin aut Xiquan Ma verfasserin aut Wentian Li verfasserin aut Jie Ren verfasserin aut Wei Lu verfasserin aut Rainer Leonhart verfasserin aut In Frontiers in Psychiatry Frontiers Media S.A., 2010 13(2022) (DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2 16640640 nnns volume:13 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a kostenfrei https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2022
language	English
source	In Frontiers in Psychiatry 13(2022) volume:13 year:2022
sourceStr	In Frontiers in Psychiatry 13(2022) volume:13 year:2022
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8 Psychiatry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Frontiers in Psychiatry
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Jinya Cao @@aut@@ Jing Wei @@aut@@ Kurt Fritzsche @@aut@@ Anne Christin Toussaint @@aut@@ Tao Li @@aut@@ Lan Zhang @@aut@@ Yaoyin Zhang @@aut@@ Hua Chen @@aut@@ Heng Wu @@aut@@ Xiquan Ma @@aut@@ Wentian Li @@aut@@ Jie Ren @@aut@@ Wei Lu @@aut@@ Rainer Leonhart @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	631498796
id	DOAJ086838431
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ086838431</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311053929.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ086838431</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC435-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jinya Cao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">somatic symptom disorder</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PHQ-15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SSS-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SSD-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">WI-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Psychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jing Wei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kurt Fritzsche</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne Christin Toussaint</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tao Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lan Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yaoyin Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hua Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Heng Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiquan Ma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wentian Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jie Ren</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wei Lu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rainer Leonhart</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Psychiatry</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">13(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)631498796</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2564218-2</subfield><subfield code="x">16640640</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Jinya Cao
spellingShingle	Jinya Cao misc RC435-571 misc somatic symptom disorder misc PHQ-15 misc SSS-8 misc SSD-12 misc WI-8 misc Psychiatry Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
authorStr	Jinya Cao
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)631498796
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC435-571
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	16640640
topic_title	RC435-571 Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis somatic symptom disorder PHQ-15 SSS-8 SSD-12 WI-8
topic	misc RC435-571 misc somatic symptom disorder misc PHQ-15 misc SSS-8 misc SSD-12 misc WI-8 misc Psychiatry
topic_unstemmed	misc RC435-571 misc somatic symptom disorder misc PHQ-15 misc SSS-8 misc SSD-12 misc WI-8 misc Psychiatry
topic_browse	misc RC435-571 misc somatic symptom disorder misc PHQ-15 misc SSS-8 misc SSD-12 misc WI-8 misc Psychiatry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Frontiers in Psychiatry
hierarchy_parent_id	631498796
hierarchy_top_title	Frontiers in Psychiatry
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)631498796 (DE-600)2564218-2
title	Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ086838431 (DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a
title_full	Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
author_sort	Jinya Cao
journal	Frontiers in Psychiatry
journalStr	Frontiers in Psychiatry
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Jinya Cao Jing Wei Kurt Fritzsche Anne Christin Toussaint Tao Li Lan Zhang Yaoyin Zhang Hua Chen Heng Wu Xiquan Ma Wentian Li Jie Ren Wei Lu Rainer Leonhart
container_volume	13
class	RC435-571
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Jinya Cao
doi_str_mv	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	detecting dsm-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in china: b-criteria instrument has better accuracy—a secondary analysis
callnumber	RC435-571
title_auth	Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
abstract	ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.
abstractGer	ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.
abstract_unstemmed	ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597 https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640
remote_bool	true
author2	Jing Wei Kurt Fritzsche Anne Christin Toussaint Tao Li Lan Zhang Yaoyin Zhang Hua Chen Heng Wu Xiquan Ma Wentian Li Jie Ren Wei Lu Rainer Leonhart
author2Str	Jing Wei Kurt Fritzsche Anne Christin Toussaint Tao Li Lan Zhang Yaoyin Zhang Hua Chen Heng Wu Xiquan Ma Wentian Li Jie Ren Wei Lu Rainer Leonhart
ppnlink	631498796
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597
callnumber-a	RC435-571
up_date	2024-07-03T23:02:36.106Z
_version_	1803600795908702209
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ086838431</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230311053929.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230311s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ086838431</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC435-571</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jinya Cao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ObjectiveThis study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals.MethodsIn our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points.ResultsData from n = 694 patients [38.6% male, mean age: 42.89 years (SD = 14.24)] were analyzed. A total of 33.9% of patients fulfilled the SSD criteria. Diagnostic accuracy was moderate or good for each questionnaire (PHQ-15: AUC = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.68–0.75; SSS-8: AUC = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76; SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.86; WI-8: AUC = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.78–0.84). SSD-12 and WI-8 were significantly better at predicting SSD diagnoses. Combining PHQ-15 or SSS-8 with SSD-12 or WI-8 showed similar diagnostic accuracy to SSD-12 or WI-8 alone (PHQ-15 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; PHQ-15 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.85; SSS-8 + SSD-12: AUC = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.81–0.87; SSS-8 + WI-8: AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.79–0.84). In the efficiency analysis, both SSD-12 and WI-8 showed good efficiency, SSD-12 slightly more efficient than WI-8; however, within the range of good sensitivity, the PHQ-15 and SSS-8 delivered rather poor specificity. For a priority of sensitivity over specificity, the cutoff points of ≥13 for SSD-12 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 72%) and ≥17 for WI-8 (sensitivity and specificity = 80 and 67%) are recommended.ConclusionsIn general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">somatic symptom disorder</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">PHQ-15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SSS-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SSD-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">WI-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Psychiatry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jing Wei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kurt Fritzsche</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne Christin Toussaint</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tao Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lan Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yaoyin Zhang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hua Chen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Heng Wu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiquan Ma</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wentian Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jie Ren</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wei Lu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rainer Leonhart</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Frontiers in Psychiatry</subfield><subfield code="d">Frontiers Media S.A., 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">13(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)631498796</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2564218-2</subfield><subfield code="x">16640640</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/7b72a2b3c6f842c6b094d94d700ddb2a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597/full</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1664-0640</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399646

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy—A secondary analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?