Suppr超能文献

蒙哥马利-Åsberg 评定量表和康奈尔抑郁量表在巴西老年痴呆症患者中的验证。

Validation of Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia in Brazilian elderly patients.

机构信息

Center for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

出版信息

Int Psychogeriatr. 2012 Aug;24(8):1291-8. doi: 10.1017/S1041610211002250. Epub 2011 Dec 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are few studies on validation of depression scales in the elderly in Latin America. This study aimed to assess the validity of Montgomery-Åsberg. Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) in Brazilian elderly outpatients.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 95 outpatients was diagnosed for dementia and depression according to DSM-IV-TR, ICD-10, and PDC-dAD criteria. Receiver Operating Curves (ROC) were used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and to assess MADRS and CSDD cut-offs for each diagnostic criterion.

RESULTS

Dementia was diagnosed in 71 of 95 patients. Depression was diagnosed in 35, 30, and 51 patients by ICD-10, DSM-IV, and PDC-dAD, respectively. MADRS cut-off score of 10 correctly diagnosed 67.4% and 66.3% patients as depressed according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. A cut-off of 9 correctly identified 74.7% by PDC-dAD criteria; a CSDD cut-off score of 13 best recognized depression according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. A score of 11 diagnosed depression according to PDC-dAD, while MADRS = 9 recognized depression in dementia. CSDD was more efficient in showing depression in mild than in moderate/severe dementia according to DSM-IV/ICD-10. PDC-dAD behaved nicely for any severity stage.

CONCLUSION

MADRS and CSDD cut-offs of 10 and 13 were the optimal ones to diagnose depression in elderly, respectively. CSDD cut-offs are higher than those found in other countries. Other Latin American studies are needed to compare results with our study.

摘要

背景

在拉丁美洲,针对老年人的抑郁量表验证研究较少。本研究旨在评估蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表(MADRS)和康奈尔痴呆抑郁量表(CSDD)在巴西老年门诊患者中的效度。

方法

根据 DSM-IV-TR、ICD-10 和 PDC-dAD 标准,对 95 名门诊患者进行痴呆和抑郁诊断,采用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)计算曲线下面积(AUC),评估 MADRS 和 CSDD 对每个诊断标准的截断值。

结果

95 例患者中,71 例被诊断为痴呆,35、30 和 51 例患者分别根据 ICD-10、DSM-IV 和 PDC-dAD 诊断为抑郁。MADRS 截断值为 10 时,DSM-IV 和 ICD-10 正确诊断 67.4%和 66.3%的患者为抑郁;截断值为 9 时,PDC-dAD 标准正确识别 74.7%的患者;CSDD 截断值为 13 时,根据 DSM-IV 和 ICD-10 最佳识别抑郁。PDC-dAD 标准的得分 11 可诊断为抑郁,而 MADRS 为 9 可诊断痴呆患者的抑郁。根据 DSM-IV/ICD-10,CSDD 更有效地显示轻度痴呆而非中重度/重度痴呆患者的抑郁。PDC-dAD 在任何严重程度阶段都表现良好。

结论

MADRS 和 CSDD 的截断值分别为 10 和 13,是诊断老年人抑郁的最佳截断值。CSDD 的截断值高于其他国家的发现。需要进行其他拉丁美洲研究来比较我们的研究结果。

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