School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Black Dog Institute, Sydney, Australia.
J Affect Disord. 2013 Jan 25;144(3):199-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.06.042. Epub 2012 Aug 4.
Melancholia is positioned as either a more severe expression of clinical depression or as a separate entity. Support for the latter view emerges from differential causal factors and treatment responsiveness but has not been convincingly demonstrated in terms of differential clinical features. We pursue its prototypic clinical pattern to determine if this advances its delineation.
We developed a 24-item measure (now termed the Sydney Melancholia Prototype Index or SMPI) comprising 12 melancholic and 12 non-melancholic prototypic features (both symptoms and illness correlates). In this evaluative study, 278 patients referred for tertiary level assessment at a specialized mood disorders clinic completed the self-report SMPI as well as a depression severity measure and a comprehensive assessment schedule before clinical interview, while assessing clinicians completed a clinician version of the SMPI items following their interview. The independent variable (diagnostic gold standard) was the clinician's judgment of a melancholic versus non-melancholic depressive episode. Discriminative performance was evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis of four strategies for operationalising the SMPI self-report and SMPI clinician measures, and with the former strategies compared to ROC analysis of the depression severity measure. The external validity of the optimally discriminating scores on each measure was tested against a range of clinical variables.
Comparison of the two self-report measures established that the SMPI provided greater discrimination than the depression severity measure, while comparison of the self-report and clinician-rated SMPI measures established the latter as more discriminating of clinically diagnosed melancholic or non-melancholic depression. ROC analyses favoured self-report SMPI distinction of melancholic from non-melancholic depression being most optimally calculated by a 'difference' score of at least four or more melancholic than non-melancholic items being affirmed (sensitivity of 0.69, specificity of 0.77). For the clinician-rated SMPI measure, ROC analyses confirmed the same optimal difference score of four or more as highly discriminating of melancholic and non-melancholic depression (sensitivity of 0.84, specificity of 0.92). As the difference score had positive predictive values of 0.90 and 0.70 (for the respective clinician-rated and self-report SMPI forms) and respective negative predictive values of 0.88 and 0.70, we conclude that the clinician-rated version had superior discrimination than the self-report version. External validating data quantified the self-rated and clinician-rated Index-assigned non-melancholic patients having a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders, a higher number of current and lifetime stressors, as well as elevated scores on several personality styles that are viewed as predisposing to and shaping such non-melancholic disorders.
Assigned melancholic and non-melancholic diagnoses were determined by clinician judgement, risking a circularity bias across diagnostic assignment and clinical weighting of melancholic and non-melancholic features. The robustness of the Index requires testing in primary and secondary levels of care settings.
The clinician-rated SMPI differentiated melancholic and non-melancholic depressed subjects at a higher level of confidence than the self-report SMPI, and with a highly acceptable level of discrimination. The measure is recommended for further testing of its intrinsic and applied properties.
忧郁症被定位为临床抑郁症的更严重表现形式,或者是一种独立的实体。支持后者的观点源于不同的因果因素和治疗反应,但在不同的临床特征方面尚未得到令人信服的证明。我们追求其典型的临床模式,以确定这是否可以推进其划分。
我们开发了一个 24 项的测量工具(现在称为悉尼忧郁症原型指数或 SMPI),包括 12 项忧郁症和 12 项非忧郁症的典型特征(包括症状和疾病相关因素)。在这项评估研究中,278 名在专门的情绪障碍诊所接受三级评估的患者在临床访谈前完成了自我报告的 SMPI 以及抑郁严重程度测量和全面评估计划,而评估临床医生在访谈后则完成了 SMPI 项目的临床医生版本。独立变量(诊断金标准)是临床医生对忧郁性或非忧郁性抑郁发作的判断。通过Receiver Operating Characteristics(ROC)分析四种操作 SMPI 自我报告和 SMPI 临床测量的策略,以及与抑郁严重程度测量的 ROC 分析比较,评估了判别性能。在每个测量的最佳判别得分的外部有效性是针对一系列临床变量进行测试的。
两种自我报告测量的比较表明,SMPI 比抑郁严重程度测量提供了更好的区分度,而自我报告和临床评估的 SMPI 测量的比较表明,后者更能区分临床诊断的忧郁症或非忧郁症抑郁症。ROC 分析赞成 SMPI 自我报告区分忧郁症和非忧郁症的最佳方法是至少有四个或更多的忧郁症项目被肯定,而不是非忧郁症项目(敏感性为 0.69,特异性为 0.77)。对于临床评估的 SMPI 测量,ROC 分析证实了相同的最佳差异评分(四个或更多)高度区分忧郁症和非忧郁症(敏感性为 0.84,特异性为 0.92)。由于差异评分的阳性预测值分别为 0.90 和 0.70(分别为临床评估和自我报告 SMPI 形式),阴性预测值分别为 0.88 和 0.70,我们得出结论,临床评估版本比自我报告版本具有更好的区分度。外部验证数据量化了自我评估和临床评估的指数分配的非忧郁症患者,他们更普遍患有焦虑障碍,当前和终身压力源更多,以及几种人格风格的评分更高,这些人格风格被认为是导致和塑造这种非忧郁症的原因。
分配的忧郁症和非忧郁症诊断是由临床医生判断决定的,这在诊断分配和临床对忧郁症和非忧郁症特征的重视方面存在循环偏见的风险。指数的稳健性需要在初级和二级护理环境中进行测试。
临床评估的 SMPI 比自我报告的 SMPI 更能自信地区分忧郁症和非忧郁症患者,具有高度可接受的区分度。该测量工具建议进一步测试其内在和应用特性。