Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and 2-item (GAD-2) scales for detecting anxiety disorders in adults

Anxiety disorders often remain undetected and can cause substantial burden. Amongst the many anxiety screening tools, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale and its short version, the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2) scale, are the most frequently used instruments.

Primary: to determine the diagnostic accuracy of GAD-7 and GAD-2 to detect generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and any anxiety disorder (AAD) in adults. Secondary: to investigate whether their diagnostic accuracy varies by setting, anxiety disorder prevalence, reference standard, and risk of bias; to compare the diagnostic accuracy of GAD-7 and GAD-2; to investigate how diagnostic performance changes with the test threshold.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed-not-MEDLINE subset, and PsycINFO from 1990 to 18 January 2024. We checked reference lists of included studies and review articles.

We included cross-sectional studies conducted in adults, containing diagnostic accuracy information on GAD-7 and/or GAD-2 questionnaires for the target conditions generalised anxiety disorder and/or any anxiety disorder, and allowing the generation of 2x2 tables. The target conditions must have been diagnosed using a structured or semi-structured clinical interview. We excluded case-control studies and studies in which the time elapsed between the index tests and reference standards exceeded four weeks. We excluded studies involving people (1) seeking help in mental health settings or (2) recruited specifically due to mental health symptoms in other settings.

At least two review authors independently decided on study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability of included studies. For each questionnaire and each target condition, we present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in forest plots. We used the bivariate model to obtain summary estimates based on cut-offs closest to the recommended values (i.e. within a core range). In secondary analyses, we used the bivariate model and the multiple thresholds model to obtain summary estimates for all available cut-off points. Using the multiple thresholds model, we also calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to obtain a general indicator of the diagnostic accuracy of GAD-7 and GAD-2.

We included 48 studies with 19,228 participants from 27 different countries, evaluating the GAD-7 and the GAD-2 in 24 different languages. Seven studies were performed in non-clinical settings, nine in clinical settings recruiting participants across conditions, and 32 in clinical settings with participants having specific conditions. Even after categorisation into three settings, the study populations were substantially different. The most frequently studied populations were people: with epilepsy (nine studies); with cancer (five studies); with cardiovascular disease (five studies); and in primary care regardless of their condition (five studies). We considered the risk of bias low in eight studies, and we had low concerns about the applicability of findings in three studies. Thirty-five studies contributed to the primary analyses of GAD-7 for detecting generalised anxiety disorder (median prevalence 12%); 22 studies to analyses of GAD-7 for any anxiety disorder (median prevalence 19%); 24 studies to analyses of GAD-2 for generalised anxiety disorder (median prevalence 9%); and 19 studies to analyses of GAD-2 for any anxiety disorder (median prevalence 19%). At the recommended cut-off of 10 or higher (or the closest available cut-off), the GAD-7 questionnaire yielded a summary sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.72) and a summary specificity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) in detecting generalised anxiety disorder. For detecting any anxiety disorder, summary sensitivity was 0.48 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.57) and summary specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93). At the recommended cut-off of 3 or higher (or the closest available cut-off), the GAD-2 yielded a summary sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.89) for detecting generalised anxiety disorder. For detecting any anxiety disorder, the summary sensitivity was 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.62) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.91). The 95% prediction region of GAD-7 for detecting generalised anxiety disorder was larger (indicating pronounced statistical heterogeneity) than for the three other analyses. Specificity varied by setting in the analysis of GAD-7 and GAD-2 for detecting any anxiety disorder, and by reference standard in the analysis of GAD-2 for detecting generalised anxiety disorder. Sensitivity varied with prevalence in the analysis of GAD-7 for generalised anxiety disorder. Other investigations of potential sources of heterogeneity did not show statistically significant associations with test accuracy. In all analyses, sensitivity tended to be higher and specificity lower in participants with specific conditions compared to the other two settings. Overall, the heterogeneity in the subgroup analyses remained high. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the multiple thresholds model was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.88) for the GAD-7 scale in detecting generalised anxiety disorder, and 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.82) in detecting any anxiety disorders. For the GAD-2 scale, the value was 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.86) for detecting generalised anxiety disorder, and 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82) for detecting any anxiety disorders. Comparative bivariate analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between the diagnostic test accuracy of GAD-7 and GAD-2.

The GAD-7 and the GAD-2 scales have been tested in numerous languages and different populations. Overall, the GAD-7 and the GAD-2 seem to have acceptable or good diagnostic accuracy for both generalised anxiety disorder and any anxiety disorder. The GAD-2 scale seems to have similar diagnostic accuracy as the GAD-7 scale. However, due to the diversity of the included studies and the heterogeneity of our findings, our summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity should be interpreted as rough averages. The performance of GAD-7 and GAD-2 may deviate substantially from these values in specific situations.