PROMIS Anxiety measures show moderate screening accuracy for anxiety disorders in adults

Photo by Julia Koblitz / Unsplash

Journal of psychosomatic research Published June 1, 2026 Medically reviewed June 1, 2026 Study authors: Fomenko Alexey, Fischer Felix H, Marrie Ruth Ann, Recklitis Christopher J, Bernstein Charles N, Hitc… PubMed ↗ DOI ↗ By Dr. Ji-eun Park, MD · Brain, Mind & Pain

Key Takeaway

Consider PROMIS Anxiety measures as moderately accurate screening tools for anxiety disorders, but note limited evidence.

This systematic review and multiple-thresholds meta-analysis evaluated the screening accuracy of PROMIS Anxiety measures for detecting anxiety disorders in adults. The analysis included 1121 participants across multiple studies. For any anxiety disorder, the pooled sensitivity was 0.76 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.80) and specificity 0.74 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.78), with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.84). For generalised anxiety disorder specifically, sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) and specificity 0.79 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.80), with an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.85).

The authors note important limitations: a limited number of studies, especially for other PROMIS Anxiety measures, and a lack of replication in settings like primary care. These factors reduce the generalisability of the findings. The meta-analysis did not report on funding or conflicts of interest.

Clinicians should interpret these accuracy estimates with caution. While PROMIS Anxiety measures demonstrate moderate discriminative ability, the evidence base is still small and may not reflect real-world primary care populations. Further research is needed before widespread implementation.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

Sample sizen = 1,121

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedJun 2026

PMID41812543

View Original Abstract ↓

AIMS: To assess the test accuracy of PROMIS® Anxiety measures for screening any anxiety disorder (AAD) and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), and how it varies by cut-offs. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases from inception until 15 July 2025 (Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed-not-MEDLINE-subset, PsycINFO). We included test accuracy studies using any PROMIS® anxiety measure and (semi-)structured interviews in adults, and assessed the study quality with the QUADAS-2 instrument. We applied a multiple thresholds model to estimate the summary sensitivities and specificities across cut-offs and the area under the curve (AUC) RESULTS: Six studies, each on a different disease, met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1121 participants. For PROMIS® Short Form-(SF)-Anxiety(A)-8a, we found five studies, two for PROMIS®-CAT-A and one for PROMIS®-SF-A-7a. Meta-analyses for screening AAD and GAD were performed only for PROMIS®-SF-A-8a, identifying the maximised sum of sensitivity and specificity at T-score cut-offs 55.4 and 58.4, respectively. At these cut-offs, summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.76 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.80) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.78) for AAD, and 0.75 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.80) for GAD. Corresponding AUCs were 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.84) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.85). Only minor between-study heterogeneity was found. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS®-SF-A-8a results were homogeneous, showing good screening accuracy. However, the limited number of studies - especially for other PROMIS® Anxiety measures - and the lack of replication in settings like primary care highlight the need for further research.