Ungvari Gabor S
University of Notre Dame Australia, Perth, Australia.
Neuropsychopharmacol Hung. 2014 Dec;16(4):189-94.
Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge of interest in catatonia, which is reflected in the attention it received in DSM 5, where it appears as a separate subsection of the Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders (APA, 2013). This commentary argues that due to the lack of solid scientific evidence, the extended coverage of catatonia in DSM 5 was a premature, and consequently, a necessarily ambiguous decision. The psychopathological foundations of the modern catatonia concept are lacking therefore its boundaries are fuzzy. There are only a few, methodologically sound clinical, treatment response and small-scale neurobiological studies. The widely recommended use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of catatonia is based on case reports and open-label studies instead of placebo-controlled, randomized trials. In conclusion, the catatonic concept espoused by DSM 5 is necessarily vague reflecting the current state of knowledge.
在过去二十年中,对紧张症的兴趣激增,这反映在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM 5)对其的关注上,紧张症在该手册中作为精神分裂症谱系及其他精神病性障碍的一个独立小节出现(美国精神病学协会,2013年)。本评论认为,由于缺乏确凿的科学证据,DSM 5中对紧张症的扩展涵盖是不成熟的,因此必然是一个模糊的决定。现代紧张症概念缺乏心理病理学基础,因此其界限模糊。仅有少数方法合理的临床、治疗反应及小规模神经生物学研究。广泛推荐使用苯二氮䓬类药物治疗紧张症是基于病例报告和开放标签研究,而非安慰剂对照的随机试验。总之,DSM 5所支持的紧张症概念必然模糊,反映了当前的知识状态。