ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adult trauma patients are at risk of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Early intervention reduces the development of PTSD, but few trauma patients seek and obtain care. Valid and reliable screening tools are needed to identify patients at risk of developing PTSD. The objective of this review is to identify existing screening tools and evaluate their accuracy for predicting PTSD outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, PsychInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies evaluating the predictive accuracy of PTSD screening tools among traumatically injured adult civilians. Eligible studies assessed patients during acute hospitalization and at least 1 month following injury to measure PTSD outcome. Eligible outcomes included measures of predictive accuracy, such as sensitivity and specificity. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each study, and the strength of evidence was assessed following the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included evaluating the predictive accuracy of 38 screening tools. Most tools were assessed in a single study. Questionnaire-style tools had more favorable predictive ability than diagnostic interview assessments. The Injured Trauma Survivor Screen, Posttraumatic Adjustment Screen, the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, and the Richmond et al. tool demonstrated the most favorable predictive accuracy, with high sensitivity (75-100%) and specificity (67-94%). Common sources of bias were selection bias due to high attrition rate and using nondiagnostic tools to assess PTSD symptoms at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although sensitivity and specificity of PTSD predictive tools varied widely, several emerged with favorable predictive accuracy. Further research is needed to define the ability of screening and intervention to prevent PTSD in injured trauma survivors. The results of this review can inform screening tool options for screening programs and future intervention studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.