Means-Christensen Adrienne, Sherbourne Cathy D, Roy-Byrne Peter, Craske Michelle G, Bystritsky Alexander, Stein Murray B
University of California, San Diego, CA 92037, USA.
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(4):167-81. doi: 10.1002/mpr.154.
In a recent study of treatment for panic disorder in primary care, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) was used to provide psychiatric diagnoses. However, during and after data collection, it was discovered that the CIDI appeared to place, or fail to place, a substantial number of people into diagnostic categories in ways that conflicted with the investigators' clinical experience. The wording of questions in the panic module, coupled with a lack of structured follow-up probes, resulted in apparent false negatives for panic disorder. Moreover, patients who would otherwise meet criteria for panic disorder or social phobia did not receive a diagnosis based on rules that may be discordant with clinical practice and, at times, the design of the DSM-IV. For this study, changes were made to the interview, including additional probes for the panic disorder module and modification of the decision rules used to assign or rule out diagnoses of panic disorder and social phobia. The changes resulted in greater inclusion of patients in the panic disorder and social phobia diagnostic categories and we argue that these changes to the CIDI-Auto increase the clinical validity of this instrument. We did not examine the false positive rate for the unmodified or modified CIDI, but this is an important issue that needs to be evaluated in future research.
在最近一项针对初级保健中惊恐障碍治疗的研究中,使用了综合国际诊断访谈(CIDI - Auto)来进行精神疾病诊断。然而,在数据收集期间及之后,发现CIDI似乎以与研究者临床经验相冲突的方式,将大量人员归入或未归入诊断类别。惊恐模块中的问题措辞,加上缺乏结构化的后续追问,导致惊恐障碍出现明显的假阴性。此外,那些原本符合惊恐障碍或社交恐惧症标准的患者,根据可能与临床实践以及有时与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM - IV)设计不一致的规则,未得到诊断。对于本研究,对访谈进行了修改,包括对惊恐障碍模块增加追问,以及修改用于确定或排除惊恐障碍和社交恐惧症诊断的决策规则。这些改变使得更多患者被纳入惊恐障碍和社交恐惧症诊断类别,我们认为对CIDI - Auto的这些改变提高了该工具的临床有效性。我们未考察未修改或修改后的CIDI的假阳性率,但这是一个重要问题,需要在未来研究中进行评估。