Joyce Peter R, Mulder Roger T, Luty Suzanne E, McKenzie Janice M, Sullivan Patrick F, Abbott Robyn M, Stevens Isobel F
Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, New Zealand.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002 Jun;36(3):376-83. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.01025.x.
To evaluate the CORE measure of melancholia, against the DSM-IV construct of melancholia. To evaluate the validity of both the CORE and DSM-IV constructs of melancholia against psychosocial risk factors, anxiety and personality disorder comorbidity, neuroendocrine markers and differential anti depressant response to fluoxetine and nortriptyline.
One hundred and ninety-five outpatients with major depression were evaluated for melancholia with both the DSM-IV criteria and the CORE evaluation. Both constructs were evaluated for validity against psychosocial risk factors, comorbidity, biological markers and differential antidepressant response.
The CORE measure has satisfactory interrater reliability when used dimensionally, but has unacceptably low agreement for making a categorical diagnosis of melancholia. There is remarkably poor agreement (kappa = 0.11) between the CORE and DSM-IV criteria for melancholia. Neither the DSM-IV nor CORE criteria for melancholia identified subgroups of patients with better childhood environments or less anxiety or personality disorder comorbidity. The CORE criteria for melancholia, but not DSM-IV, identified patients with neuroendocrine disturbance. CORE scores also were associated with differential responses to fluoxetine and nortriptyline, but not in anticipated directions. Thus, high CORE scores were associated with a higher recovery rate with fluoxetine than nortriptyline.
While the episode specifier of melancholia should be retained in diagnostic systems, the DSM-IV criteria were not validated against any of the variables examined in this study. The CORE construct of melancholia, was validated against neuroendocrine measures, and was associated with a differential antidepressant response. However, the limits imposed by interrater reliability,suggest the CORE measure should be used dimensionally and not to make a categorical diagnosis of melancholia.
评估忧郁症的CORE测量方法相对于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第四版》(DSM-IV)中忧郁症结构的情况。评估CORE和DSM-IV忧郁症结构在心理社会风险因素、焦虑和人格障碍共病、神经内分泌标志物以及对氟西汀和去甲替林的不同抗抑郁反应方面的有效性。
对195名重度抑郁症门诊患者采用DSM-IV标准和CORE评估方法进行忧郁症评估。对这两种结构在心理社会风险因素、共病、生物学标志物和不同抗抑郁反应方面的有效性进行评估。
CORE测量方法在维度使用时具有令人满意的评分者间信度,但在进行忧郁症的分类诊断时一致性低得令人无法接受。CORE与DSM-IV忧郁症标准之间的一致性非常差(kappa = 0.11)。DSM-IV和CORE忧郁症标准均未识别出童年环境更好或焦虑或人格障碍共病较少的患者亚组。CORE忧郁症标准而非DSM-IV标准识别出了神经内分泌紊乱的患者。CORE评分也与对氟西汀和去甲替林的不同反应相关,但并非预期的方向。因此,CORE高分与使用氟西汀相比使用去甲替林时更高的康复率相关。
虽然忧郁症的发作说明符应保留在诊断系统中,但DSM-IV标准在本研究中所检验的任何变量方面均未得到验证。CORE忧郁症结构在神经内分泌测量方面得到了验证,并与不同的抗抑郁反应相关。然而,评分者间信度所带来的限制表明,CORE测量方法应在维度上使用,而不是用于进行忧郁症的分类诊断。