Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis.

By A. Mitchell, Amol Vaze, S. Rao. The Lancet, 2009

1,213 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Pharmacology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f00548ea74d1b16384e2970a59f82d0b4483509

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Itai Ivtzan
2. R. Hart
3. Dan Hart

In Social Psychology

1. Ellen J. Langer
2. Andrew J. Reagan
3. Christopher M. Danforth
4. Peter Sheridan Dodds
5. Katharina Lix
6. Andrew G. Reece

Citations in the corpus

• Forecasting the onset and course of mental illness with Twitter data (2016, background): “Precision, recall, specificity, negative predictive value, and F1 accuracy scores are reported, and general practitioners’ unassisted diagnostic accuracy rates as reported in Mitchell, Vaze, and Rao28 (MVR) and Taubman-Ben-Ari et al.22 (TBA) are used as informal benchmarks for depression and PTSD, r”
• Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis (2016, neutral): “That notwithstanding, it is estimated that about 50% of depressed patients are incorrectly identified by general practitioners in routine unassisted diagnosis of depression [7], and that only a limited proportion of cases receive adequate treatment [8;9].”