↓ Skip to main content

The relevance of ‘mixed anxiety and depression’ as a diagnostic category in clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
Title
The relevance of ‘mixed anxiety and depression’ as a diagnostic category in clinical practice
Published in
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00406-016-0684-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans-Jürgen Möller, Borwin Bandelow, Hans-Peter Volz, Utako Birgit Barnikol, Erich Seifritz, Siegfried Kasper

Abstract

According to ICD-10 criteria, mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (MADD) is characterized by co-occurring, subsyndromal symptoms of anxiety and depression, severe enough to justify a psychiatric diagnosis, but neither of which are clearly predominant. MADD appears to be very common, particularly in primary care, although prevalence estimates vary, often depending on the diagnostic criteria applied. It has been associated with similarly pronounced distress, impairment of daily living skills, and reduced health-related quality of life as fully syndromal depression and anxiety. Although about half of the patients affected remit within a year, non-remitting patients are at a high risk of transition to a fully syndromal psychiatric disorder. The validity and clinical usefulness of MADD as a diagnostic category are under debate. It has not been included in the recently released DSM-5 since the proposed diagnostic criteria turned out to be not sufficiently reliable. Moreover, reviewers have disputed the justification of MADD based on divergent results regarding its prevalence and course, diagnostic stability over time, and nosological inconsistencies between subthreshold and threshold presentations of anxiety and depressive disorders. We review the evidence in favor and against MADD and argue that it should be included into classification systems as a diagnostic category because it may enable patients to gain access to appropriate treatment early. This may help to reduce patients' distress, prevent exacerbation to a more serious psychiatric disorder, and ultimately reduce the societal costs of this very common condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 15%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Student > Postgraduate 19 7%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 86 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 24%
Psychology 55 20%
Neuroscience 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 3%
Other 35 13%
Unknown 89 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2023.
All research outputs
#5,783,702
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#329
of 1,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,345
of 303,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.