Whelan-Goodinson Rochelle, Ponsford Jennie, Schönberger Michael
School of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Affect Disord. 2009 Apr;114(1-3):94-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.007. Epub 2008 Jul 25.
Rating scales are often used in the assessment of depression and anxiety in traumatic brain injury (TBI), but few have been validated for use with this population. Overlap of symptoms between such disorders and TBI may lead to under- or over-diagnosis of depression or anxiety.
100 participants with mild to severe TBI, and 87 informants, were interviewed using the SCID-IV (Axis I). The HADS was administered at the same time.
According to the SCID-IV, 34 participants were diagnosed with major depression and 36 with an anxiety disorder. Higher HADS scores were associated with a greater likelihood of depression and anxiety. However, the "clinical" categories of the HADS did not strongly correspond with the clinical diagnoses of depression and anxiety. Compared with SCID diagnoses, the depression subscale of the HADS had a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 92%. The anxiety subscale had a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 69%. Positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated.
This study included mostly moderate to severe TBI individuals, recruited from a rehabilitation hospital. Therefore, they may not necessarily be representative of the entire TBI population.
The HADS was a reliable measure of emotional distress in this TBI sample; however the cut-off scores and categories were not useful in predicting caseness of depression and anxiety. Clinicians should be mindful of the sequelae of TBI that may confound the scores yielded in rating scales and should follow up with a psychiatric interview when diagnosis is unclear.
评定量表常用于评估创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者的抑郁和焦虑状况,但很少有量表针对该人群进行过验证。此类疾病与TBI之间症状的重叠可能导致抑郁或焦虑的诊断不足或过度诊断。
使用SCID-IV(轴I)对100名轻度至重度TBI患者和87名信息提供者进行访谈。同时发放医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)。
根据SCID-IV,34名参与者被诊断为重度抑郁症,36名被诊断为焦虑症。HADS得分越高,患抑郁和焦虑的可能性越大。然而,HADS的“临床”类别与抑郁和焦虑的临床诊断并不完全相符。与SCID诊断相比,HADS抑郁分量表的敏感性为62%,特异性为92%。焦虑分量表的敏感性为75%,特异性为69%。计算了阳性预测值和阴性预测值。
本研究主要纳入了从康复医院招募的中度至重度TBI患者。因此,他们不一定能代表整个TBI人群。
在这个TBI样本中,HADS是一种可靠的情绪困扰测量工具;然而,临界值和类别在预测抑郁和焦虑的病例方面并无用处。临床医生应注意TBI的后遗症可能会混淆评定量表得出的分数,在诊断不明确时应进行精神科访谈随访。