Wilson Jo Ellen, Niu Kathy, Nicolson Stephen E, Levine Stephen Z, Heckers Stephan
Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Department of Community Mental Health, University of Haifa, Israel.
Schizophr Res. 2015 May;164(1-3):256-62. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2014.12.036. Epub 2015 Jan 13.
The classification of catatonia has fluctuated and underwent recent changes in DSM-5. The current study examines the prevalence of catatonia signs, estimates the utility of diagnostic features, identifies core catatonia signs, and explores their underlying structure.
We screened 339 acutely ill medical and psychiatric patients with the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS). We examined prevalence and severity of catatonia signs and compared BFCRS, DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnoses. We used principal component analysis (PCA) to examine the factorial validity of catatonia and item response theory (IRT) to estimate each sign's utility and reliability.
Out of the 339 patients, 300 were diagnosed with catatonia using the BFCRS and 232 catatonia diagnoses were validated by the treating provider based on selection for treatment with benzodiazepines or electroconvulsive therapy. Of the 232 validated catatonia cases, 211 (91%) met DSM-IV criteria but only 170 (73%) met DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. Staring was the most prevalent catatonia sign. PCA identified three components, interpretable as "Increased, Abnormal and Decreased Psychomotor Activity," although 63% of the variance was unexplained. IRT showed that Excitement, Waxy Flexibility and Immobility/Stupor were the best indicators of each factor. The BFCRS had many redundant items and as a whole had low reliability at low severity of catatonia, but good reliability at moderate-high severity of catatonia.
The structure of catatonia remains to be discovered.
紧张症的分类一直波动不定,且在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版(DSM - 5)中有了新变化。本研究旨在调查紧张症体征的患病率,评估诊断特征的效用,识别核心紧张症体征,并探究其潜在结构。
我们使用布什 - 弗朗西斯紧张症评定量表(BFCRS)对339名急性病医学和精神科患者进行了筛查。我们检查了紧张症体征的患病率和严重程度,并比较了BFCRS、DSM - IV和DSM - 5的诊断结果。我们使用主成分分析(PCA)来检验紧张症的因子效度,并使用项目反应理论(IRT)来估计每个体征的效用和可靠性。
在339名患者中,有300名使用BFCRS被诊断为紧张症,其中232例紧张症诊断经治疗医生基于选择使用苯二氮卓类药物或电休克治疗得到验证。在232例经验证的紧张症病例中,211例(91%)符合DSM - IV标准,但只有170例(73%)符合DSM - 5的紧张症标准。凝视是最常见的紧张症体征。主成分分析确定了三个成分,可解释为“精神运动活动增加、异常和减少”,尽管63%的方差无法解释。项目反应理论表明,兴奋、蜡样屈曲和不动/木僵是每个因素的最佳指标。BFCRS有许多冗余项目,总体而言,在紧张症低严重程度时可靠性较低,但在中高严重程度时可靠性良好。
紧张症的结构仍有待发现。