Cockram A, Judd F K, Mijch A, Norman T
University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1999 Jun;33(3):344-52. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.1999.00579.x.
The aim of this paper is: to compare the utility of four approaches to the diagnosis of depression in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease; to examine the utility of four rating scales to assess the presence and severity of depression; and to devise a set of substitutive criteria that would be appropriate in patients with HIV disease.
A group of inpatients was assessed using standard clinical interview. Patients found to have major depression using DSM-III-R (aetiological) criteria were assessed using inclusive, substitutive and exclusive criteria for the diagnosis of depression. Severity was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Rating Scale (CES-D). A group of control patients were matched for age and severity of HIV illness.
Seventeen patients met DSM-III-R (aetiological criteria) for major depression. All were male; they had a mean age of 40.6 years and one-third had acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Using alternative approaches to the diagnosis of depression, up to five additional 'depressed' patients were identified ('false positives'). All 17 patients meeting the DSM-III-R criteria also met the substitutive and exclusive criteria but only 15 exclusive criteria. Of the 17 controls (not meeting DSM-III-R criteria), two met substitutive, five inclusive and one exclusive criteria for depression. The mean (+/- SD) scores for the patients and controls were significantly different on all four rating scales. Analysis of individual items on the rating scales revealed that a number did not show significant differences between the depressed and nondepressed groups: on the MADRS the items lassitude and inner tension; on the HDRS the three items depicting anxiety symptoms, loss of libido, hypochondriasis, loss of weight, and maintenance of insight; on the BDI a sense of being punished, disappointed in self, being self-critical, a feeling of looking unattractive, fatigue, weight loss, worried about health and loss of libido; on the CES-D I felt just as good as others, hopeful, talk less, people unfriendly and felt people dislike me.
The aetiological approach used by clinicians familiar with the features of HIV disease, was found to be useful. All four rating scales differentiated equally well between depressed and non-depressed groups.
本文旨在:比较四种方法在诊断人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)疾病患者抑郁症方面的效用;检验四种评定量表在评估抑郁症的存在及严重程度方面的效用;并制定一套适用于HIV疾病患者的替代标准。
使用标准临床访谈对一组住院患者进行评估。对根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(病因学)标准被判定为患有重度抑郁症的患者,采用抑郁症诊断的包容性、替代性和排他性标准进行评估。使用汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HDRS)、蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表(MADRS)、贝克抑郁量表(BDI)和流行病学研究中心抑郁评定量表(CES-D)评估严重程度。一组对照患者在年龄和HIV疾病严重程度方面进行了匹配。
17名患者符合《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(病因学标准)的重度抑郁症诊断标准。均为男性;平均年龄40.6岁,三分之一患有获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)。采用替代方法诊断抑郁症时,另外发现多达5名“抑郁”患者(“假阳性”)。所有17名符合《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本标准的患者也符合替代性和排他性标准,但只有15名符合排他性标准。在17名对照者(不符合《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本标准)中,2名符合抑郁症的替代性标准,5名符合包容性标准,1名符合排他性标准。患者和对照者在所有四种评定量表上的平均(±标准差)得分有显著差异。对评定量表上的单个项目进行分析发现,许多项目在抑郁组和非抑郁组之间没有显著差异:在MADRS上,项目“倦怠”和“内心紧张”;在HDRS上,描述焦虑症状、性欲减退、疑病症、体重减轻和自知力维持的三个项目;在BDI上,“受惩罚感”、“对自己失望”、“自我批评”、“感觉自己没有吸引力”、“疲劳”、“体重减轻”、“担心健康”和“性欲减退”;在CES-D上,“我感觉和其他人一样好”、“充满希望”、“话少”、“人们不友好”和“感觉人们不喜欢我”。
发现熟悉HIV疾病特征的临床医生所采用的病因学方法很有用。所有四种评定量表在区分抑郁组和非抑郁组方面同样有效。