Frontiers in Psychiatry (Jan 2024)

Lessons learned from applying established cut-off values of questionnaires to detect somatic symptom disorders in primary care: a cross-sectional study

  • Victoria von Schrottenberg,
  • Anne Toussaint,
  • Alexander Hapfelmeier,
  • Alexander Hapfelmeier,
  • Clara Teusen,
  • Bernhard Riedl,
  • Peter Henningsen,
  • Jochen Gensichen,
  • Antonius Schneider,
  • Klaus Linde,
  • Tobias Dreischulte,
  • Peter Falkai,
  • Jochen Gensichen,
  • Peter Henningsen,
  • Markus Bühner,
  • Caroline Jung-Sievers,
  • Helmut Krcmar,
  • Karoline Lukaschek,
  • Gabriele Pitschel-Walz,
  • Antonius Schneider,
  • Jochen Vukas,
  • Puya Younesi,
  • Feyza Gökce,
  • Victoria von Schrottenberg,
  • Petra Schönweger,
  • Hannah Schillock,
  • Jonas Raub,
  • Philipp Reindl-Spanner,
  • Lisa Hattenkofer,
  • Lukas Kaupe,
  • Carolin Haas,
  • Julia Eder,
  • Vita Brisnik,
  • Constantin Brand,
  • Chris Ebert,
  • Marie Emilia Vogel,
  • Clara Teusen,
  • Katharina Biersack

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1289186
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14

Abstract

Read online

IntroductionBased on two diagnostic accuracy studies in high-prevalence settings, two distinctly different combinations of cut-off values have been recommended to identify persons at risk for somatic symptom disorder (SSD) with the combination of the Patient-Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and the Somatic Symptom Disorder—B Criteria Scale (SSD-12). We investigated whether the reported sensitivity and specificity of both recommended cut-off combinations are transferable to primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, 420 unselected adult primary care patients completed PHQ-15 and SSD-12. Patients scoring ≥9 and ≥ 23 (recommended cut-off combination #1) or ≥ 8 and ≥ 13 (recommended cut-off combination #2) were considered test-positive for SSD, respectively. To assess the validity of the reported sensitivity and specificity in different low- to high-prevalence settings, we compared correspondingly expected proportions of test positives to the proportion observed in our sample.ResultsBased on combination #1, 38 participants (9%) were found to be test positive, far fewer than expected, based on the reported values for sensitivity and specificity (expected minimum frequency 30% with a true prevalence ≥1%). This can only be explained by a lower sensitivity and higher specificity in primary care. For combination #2, 98 participants (23%) were test positive, a finding consistent with a true prevalence of SSD of 15% or lower.DiscussionOur analyzes strongly suggest that the sensitivity and specificity estimates reported for combination #1 are not applicable to unselected primary care patients and that the cut-off for the SSD (≥23) is too strict. Cut-off combination #2 seems more applicable but still needs to be tested in studies that compare screening findings by questionnaires with validated diagnostic interviews as reference standards in primary care populations.

Keywords