Researchers in Indiana have found that many primary care doctors are not recognizing and treating anxiety disorders suffered by their patients, according to MedPage Today. The investigators, led by Kurt Kroenke, M.D., of the Indiana University and the Regenstrief Institute, conducted a study finding that 1 in 5 patients at 15 primary-care practices indicated signs of anxiety. However, only 61 percent of those with a possible anxiety disorder were getting treated for it. The research was conducted via a self-administered questionnaire with seven items. According to investigators, alerts of patient anxiety disorders could be sufficiently based on answers to simply two of the seven questions. On this basis, further screening and possible treatment options should be made by primary care physicians. "The seven-question and ... even the two-question 'ultra brief' version gives the physician a tool to quantify the patient's symptoms -- sort of a lab test for anxiety," according to Dr. Kroenke. These symptoms of anxiety can be easily missed by busy primary-care physicians, according to Dr. Kroenke. The outcome of the questionnaire answered by 19.5 percent of the surveyed patients resulted in one or more of the four most common anxiety disorders: (1) post-traumatic stress disorders, (2) generalized anxiety disorder, (3) panic disorder, or (4) social anxiety disorder, in no particular order. "Accurate recognition of anxiety disorders in primary care is the first step in providing effective treatment and potentially preventing development of major depression and social and vocational impairment," writes Wayne Katon, M.D. and Peter Roy-Byrne, M.D. of the University of Washington, Seattle, in the editorial accompanying the article. The positive opinion of Katon and Roy-Byrne as stated in their commentary is that Kroenke and colleagues have "developed and validated a brief anxiety questionnaire that efficiently screens for the most common anxiety disorders." However, both the researchers and the editorial commentators point out that the patients surveyed in this investigation were recruited versus being randomly selected, and this may have had an affect on the outcome of the study. The article was published in the March 6 issue of the "Annals of Internal Medicine."