Self-report questionnaires to screen for symptoms of common mental disorders (CMDs) are commonly used as inexpensive, easy-to-administer tools in research and clinical practice. However, their validity to detect the presence of any CMD across cultures and languages is unclear. Psychometrically sound and brief case-finding instruments are vital for the identification of individuals with mental health needs. With the increasing number of Arabic-speaking refugees in Europe, we aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Arabic-language screening instruments.

The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis is to synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of self-report questionnaires to detect depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Arabic-speaking populations.

Five databases were searched (inception-January 2021) (PROSPERO: CRD42018070645) for studies on the diagnostic accuracy of brief questionnaires in Arabic-speaking populations, with a clinical interview as reference standard. Data on sensitivity/specificity were extracted/calculated. Multi-threshold meta-analyses were performed (R diagmeta package). Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2.

We included 32 studies (N=4042 participants) reporting on questionnaires targeting depression/anxiety (14 questionnaires), distress (2 questionnaires), and PTSD (1 questionnaire). Optimal thresholds were identified for the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; cut-off 11, sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 85.1%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety subscale (cut-off 7, sensitivity 81.9%, specificity 87.6%), depression subscale (cut-off 6, sensitivity 73.0%, specificity 88.6%), and Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20; cut-off 8, sensitivity 86.0%, specificity 83.9%).

We present optimal thresholds that can be used by clinicians and researchers for the EPDS, HADS and SRQ-20. More research on Arabic-language questionnaires, especially those targeting PTSD, is needed.

No significant relationships.

Guidelines for palliative and spiritual care emphasize the importance of screening patients for spiritual suffering. The aim of this review was to synthesize the research evidence of the accuracy of measures used to screen adults for spiritual suffering.

A systematic review of the literature. We searched five scientific databases to identify relevant articles. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed study methodological quality.

We identified five articles that yielded information on 24 spiritual screening measures. Among all identified measures, the two-item Meaning/Joy & Self-Described Struggle has the highest sensitivity (82–87%), and the revised Rush protocol had the highest specificity (81–90%). The methodological quality of all included studies was low.

While most of the identified spiritual screening measures are brief (comprised 1 to 12 items), few had sufficient accuracy to effectively screen patients for spiritual suffering. We advise clinicians to use their critical appraisal skills and clinical judgment when selecting and using any of the identified measures to screen for spiritual suffering.