Suppr超能文献

研究诊断访谈工具在应用 DSM-IV-TR 儿童双相障碍标准方面的变异性。

Variability among research diagnostic interview instruments in the application of DSM-IV-TR criteria for pediatric bipolar disorder.

机构信息

State University of New York Downstate and the Kings County Hospital Center, 451 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.

出版信息

J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;51(6):605-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.03.010.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The DSM-IV-TR criteria for a manic episode and bipolar disorder (BD) were developed for adults but are used for children. The manner in which clinicians and researchers interpret these criteria may have contributed to the increase in BD diagnoses given to youth. Research interviews are designed to improve diagnostic reliability and validity, but vary in how they incorporate DSM-IV-TR criteria for pediatric BD.

METHOD

We examined DSM-IV-TR criteria and the descriptive text for a manic episode and the mania sections of six commonly used pediatric diagnostic research interviews focusing on the following: interpretation of DSM-IV-TR, recommendations for administration, and scoring methods.

RESULTS

There are differences between the DSM-IV-TR manic episode criteria and descriptive text. Instruments vary in several ways including in their conceptualization of the mood criterion, whether symptoms must represent a change from the child's usual state, and whether B-criteria are required to co-occur with the A-criterion. Instruments also differ on recommendations for administration and scoring methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the differences between DSM-IV-TR manic episode criteria and explanatory text, it is not surprising that there is considerable variation between diagnostic instruments based on DSM-IV-TR. These differences likely lead to dissimilarities in subjects included in BD research studies and inconsistent findings across studies. The field of child psychiatry would benefit from more uniform methods of assessing symptoms and determining pediatric BD diagnoses. We discuss recommendations for changes to future instruments, interviews, assessment, and the DSM-5.

摘要

目的

DSM-IV-TR 躁狂发作和双相障碍(BD)的诊断标准是为成年人制定的,但也用于儿童。临床医生和研究人员对这些标准的解释方式可能导致了儿童 BD 诊断的增加。研究访谈旨在提高诊断的可靠性和有效性,但在如何纳入儿童 BD 的 DSM-IV-TR 标准方面存在差异。

方法

我们检查了 DSM-IV-TR 躁狂发作标准和描述性文本、六种常用儿科诊断研究访谈中的躁狂发作部分,重点关注以下方面:对 DSM-IV-TR 的解释、管理建议和评分方法。

结果

DSM-IV-TR 躁狂发作标准和描述性文本存在差异。这些工具在概念化心境标准、症状是否必须代表儿童通常状态的变化,以及 B 标准是否必须与 A 标准同时出现等方面存在差异。工具在管理和评分方法方面也存在差异。

结论

鉴于 DSM-IV-TR 躁狂发作标准和解释性文本之间的差异,基于 DSM-IV-TR 的诊断工具之间存在相当大的差异也就不足为奇了。这些差异可能导致 BD 研究中纳入的研究对象不同,以及研究之间的结果不一致。儿童精神病学领域将受益于更统一的评估症状和确定儿童 BD 诊断的方法。我们讨论了对未来工具、访谈、评估和 DSM-5 的建议。

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