Suppr超能文献

《复合国际诊断访谈量表(自动版)》(CIDI-Auto)与临床评估在诊断心境障碍和焦虑障碍中的比较

A comparison of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) with clinical assessment in diagnosing mood and anxiety disorders.

作者信息

Komiti A A, Jackson H J, Judd F K, Cockram A M, Kyrios M, Yeatman R, Murray G, Hordern C, Wainwright K, Allen N, Singh B

机构信息

University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Depression and Anxiety Research and Treatment Program, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.

出版信息

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;35(2):224-30. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00868.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Increasingly, epidemiological studies are employing computerized and highly standardized interviews, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto), to assess the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Recent studies conducted in specialist units have reported poor agreement between experienced clinicians' and CIDI-Auto diagnoses. In this study we investigated the concordance rate between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto for the diagnosis of six anxiety disorders and two mood disorders, whereby the CIDI-Auto was treated as the 'gold standard'.

METHOD

Subjects were 262 patients who were assessed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and completed the CIDI-Auto at a tertiary referral unit for anxiety and mood disorders. Agreement between the clinicians' diagnoses and the diagnoses generated by the CIDI-Auto according to both DSM-IV and ICD-10 codes, were examined by kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity values were also calculated.

RESULTS

Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (DSM-IV) ranged from poor for social phobia and posttraumatic stress disorder (kappa < 0.30) to moderate for obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD; kappa = 0.52). Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (ICD-10) ranged from poor for major depressive episode (kappa = 0.25) to moderate for OCD (kappa = 0.57). With the CIDI diagnosis treated as the gold standard, clinicians' diagnoses showed low sensitivity (kappa < 0.70) for all the disorders except for OCD (for ICD-10), but high specificity (kappa > 0.70) for all the disorders.

CONCLUSION

Poor agreements between experienced clinicians and the CIDI-Auto were reported for anxiety and mood disorders in the current study. A major implication is that if diagnosis alone directed treatment, then patients could receive different treatments, depending on whether the computer, or a clinician, made the diagnosis.

摘要

目的

流行病学研究越来越多地采用计算机化且高度标准化的访谈,如综合国际诊断访谈(CIDI-Auto),来评估精神疾病的患病率。近期在专科单位进行的研究报告称,经验丰富的临床医生与CIDI-Auto诊断之间的一致性较差。在本研究中,我们调查了临床医生与CIDI-Auto在诊断六种焦虑症和两种情绪障碍时的一致性率,其中将CIDI-Auto视为“金标准”。

方法

研究对象为262名患者,他们由临床心理学家或精神科医生进行评估,并在一家三级转诊单位完成了针对焦虑和情绪障碍的CIDI-Auto访谈。通过kappa统计检验临床医生的诊断与CIDI-Auto根据DSM-IV和ICD-10编码生成的诊断之间的一致性。还计算了敏感性和特异性值。

结果

临床医生与CIDI-Auto(DSM-IV)之间的一致性从社交恐惧症和创伤后应激障碍的较差一致性(kappa<0.30)到强迫症(OCD;kappa = 0.52)的中等一致性不等。临床医生与CIDI-Auto(ICD-10)之间的一致性从重度抑郁发作的较差一致性(kappa = 0.25)到强迫症的中等一致性(kappa = 0.57)不等。将CIDI诊断视为金标准时,临床医生的诊断对除强迫症(ICD-10)外的所有疾病显示出低敏感性(kappa<0.70),但对所有疾病均显示出高特异性(kappa>0.70)。

结论

在本研究中,经验丰富的临床医生与CIDI-Auto在焦虑和情绪障碍方面的一致性较差。一个主要影响是,如果仅根据诊断来指导治疗,那么患者可能会根据是计算机还是临床医生做出诊断而接受不同的治疗。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验