Suppr超能文献

处于疾病临界状态:一项关于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版临床意义标准对临床实践中抑郁和焦虑症诊断影响的研究

On the threshold of disorder: a study of the impact of the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion on diagnosing depressive and anxiety disorders in clinical practice.

作者信息

Zimmerman Mark, Chelminski Iwona, Young Diane

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Psychiatry. 2004 Oct;65(10):1400-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two recent reanalyses of epidemiologic studies found that adding a clinical significance criterion reduced disorder prevalence. Patients presenting for clinical care are usually distressed or impaired by their symptoms; thus, the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion might have little impact on diagnosis in clinical practice. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we examine the impact of the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion on diagnostic frequencies of depressive and anxiety disorders in psychiatric outpatients.

METHOD

1500 psychiatric outpatients were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. We determined the percentage of patients who met symptom criteria but did not meet the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion for major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social phobia, specific phobia, panic disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

RESULTS

No patient who met the symptom criteria for current major depressive disorder or PTSD failed to meet the clinical significance criterion. Less than 2% of patients meeting the symptom criteria for current GAD did not meet the clinical significance criterion. There was variability among the remaining anxiety disorders in the percentage of symptomatic patients who met the clinical significance criterion.

CONCLUSION

In psychiatric patients, the clinical significance criterion had little impact on diagnosing major depressive disorder, GAD, and PTSD, disorders that are defined, in part, by disruptions of daily regulatory domains such as sleep, appetite, energy, and concentration. In contrast, the clinical significance criterion had a greater impact in determining whether phobic fears, obsessive thoughts, and panic attacks were sufficiently distressing or impairing to qualify for disorder status.

摘要

背景

最近两项对流行病学研究的重新分析发现,增加临床意义标准会降低疾病患病率。前来接受临床治疗的患者通常会因症状而感到痛苦或功能受损;因此,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)的临床意义标准在临床实践中对诊断可能影响不大。在罗德岛改善诊断评估与服务方法(MIDAS)项目的本报告中,我们研究了DSM-IV临床意义标准对精神科门诊患者抑郁和焦虑障碍诊断频率的影响。

方法

对1500名精神科门诊患者进行了DSM-IV结构化临床访谈评估。我们确定了符合症状标准但不符合DSM-IV中重度抑郁症、创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)、广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD)、社交恐惧症、特定恐惧症、惊恐障碍和强迫症临床意义标准的患者百分比。

结果

符合当前重度抑郁症或PTSD症状标准的患者均符合临床意义标准。符合当前GAD症状标准的患者中,不到2%不符合临床意义标准。其余焦虑障碍中,符合临床意义标准的有症状患者百分比存在差异。

结论

在精神科患者中,临床意义标准对重度抑郁症、GAD和PTSD的诊断影响不大,这些疾病部分是由睡眠、食欲、精力和注意力等日常调节领域的紊乱所定义的。相比之下,临床意义标准在确定恐惧、强迫观念和惊恐发作是否足够令人痛苦或导致功能受损以符合疾病状态方面影响更大。

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