Soares-Weiser Karla, Maayan Nicola, Bergman Hanna, Davenport Clare, Kirkham Amanda J, Grabowski Sarah, Adams Clive E
Enhance Reviews Ltd, Central Office, Cobweb Buildings, The Lane, Lyford, Wantage, OX12 0EE, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 25;1(1):CD010653. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010653.pub2.
Early and accurate diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia may have long-term advantages for the patient; the longer psychosis goes untreated the more severe the repercussions for relapse and recovery. If the correct diagnosis is not schizophrenia, but another psychotic disorder with some symptoms similar to schizophrenia, appropriate treatment might be delayed, with possible severe repercussions for the person involved and their family. There is widespread uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of First Rank Symptoms (FRS); we examined whether they are a useful diagnostic tool to differentiate schizophrenia from other psychotic disorders.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of one or multiple FRS for diagnosing schizophrenia, verified by clinical history and examination by a qualified professional (e.g. psychiatrists, nurses, social workers), with or without the use of operational criteria and checklists, in people thought to have non-organic psychotic symptoms.
We conducted searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using OvidSP in April, June, July 2011 and December 2012. We also searched MEDION in December 2013.
We selected studies that consecutively enrolled or randomly selected adults and adolescents with symptoms of psychosis, and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of FRS for schizophrenia compared to history and clinical examination performed by a qualified professional, which may or may not involve the use of symptom checklists or based on operational criteria such as ICD and DSM.
Two review authors independently screened all references for inclusion. Risk of bias in included studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 instrument. We recorded the number of true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN) for constructing a 2 x 2 table for each study or derived 2 x 2 data from reported summary statistics such as sensitivity, specificity, and/or likelihood ratios.
We included 21 studies with a total of 6253 participants (5515 were included in the analysis). Studies were conducted from 1974 to 2011, with 80% of the studies conducted in the 1970's, 1980's or 1990's. Most studies did not report study methods sufficiently and many had high applicability concerns. In 20 studies, FRS differentiated schizophrenia from all other diagnoses with a sensitivity of 57% (50.4% to 63.3%), and a specificity of 81.4% (74% to 87.1%) In seven studies, FRS differentiated schizophrenia from non-psychotic mental health disorders with a sensitivity of 61.8% (51.7% to 71%) and a specificity of 94.1% (88% to 97.2%). In sixteen studies, FRS differentiated schizophrenia from other types of psychosis with a sensitivity of 58% (50.3% to 65.3%) and a specificity of 74.7% (65.2% to 82.3%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The synthesis of old studies of limited quality in this review indicates that FRS correctly identifies people with schizophrenia 75% to 95% of the time. The use of FRS to diagnose schizophrenia in triage will incorrectly diagnose around five to 19 people in every 100 who have FRS as having schizophrenia and specialists will not agree with this diagnosis. These people will still merit specialist assessment and help due to the severity of disturbance in their behaviour and mental state. Again, with a sensitivity of FRS of 60%, reliance on FRS to diagnose schizophrenia in triage will not correctly diagnose around 40% of people that specialists will consider to have schizophrenia. Some of these people may experience a delay in getting appropriate treatment. Others, whom specialists will consider to have schizophrenia, could be prematurely discharged from care, if triage relies on the presence of FRS to diagnose schizophrenia. Empathetic, considerate use of FRS as a diagnostic aid - with known limitations - should avoid a good proportion of these errors.We hope that newer tests - to be included in future Cochrane reviews - will show better results. However, symptoms of first rank can still be helpful where newer tests are not available - a situation which applies to the initial screening of most people with suspected schizophrenia. FRS remain a simple, quick and useful clinical indicator for an illness of enormous clinical variability.
精神分裂症的早期准确诊断和治疗可能对患者具有长期益处;精神病未得到治疗的时间越长,复发和康复的后果就越严重。如果正确诊断不是精神分裂症,而是另一种具有一些与精神分裂症相似症状的精神病性障碍,适当的治疗可能会延迟,这可能会给患者及其家人带来严重后果。对于一级症状(FRS)的诊断准确性存在广泛的不确定性;我们研究了它们是否是区分精神分裂症与其他精神病性障碍的有用诊断工具。
确定一项或多项FRS对精神分裂症诊断的准确性,通过临床病史和合格专业人员(如精神科医生、护士、社会工作者)的检查进行验证,无论是否使用操作标准和检查表,针对被认为有非器质性精神病性症状的人群。
我们于2011年4月、6月、7月及2012年12月使用OvidSP在MEDLINE、EMBASE和PsycInfo中进行检索。我们还于2013年12月检索了MEDION。
我们选择了连续纳入或随机选择有精神病性症状的成年人及青少年的研究,并评估了与合格专业人员进行的病史和临床检查相比,FRS对精神分裂症的诊断准确性,这可能涉及或不涉及使用症状检查表或基于如ICD和DSM等操作标准。
两位综述作者独立筛选所有参考文献以确定是否纳入。使用QUADAS - 2工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们记录真阳性(TP)、真阴性(TN)、假阳性(FP)和假阴性(FN)的数量,为每项研究构建一个2×2表格,或从报告的汇总统计数据(如敏感性、特异性和/或似然比)中推导2×2数据。
我们纳入了21项研究,共6253名参与者(5515名纳入分析)。研究时间为1974年至2011年,其中80%的研究在20世纪70年代、80年代或90年代进行。大多数研究未充分报告研究方法,许多研究存在较高的适用性问题。在20项研究中,FRS将精神分裂症与所有其他诊断区分开来,敏感性为57%(50.4%至63.3%),特异性为81.4%(74%至87.1%)。在7项研究中,FRS将精神分裂症与非精神病性心理健康障碍区分开来,敏感性为61.8%(51.7%至71%),特异性为94.1%(88%至97.2%)。在16项研究中,FRS将精神分裂症与其他类型的精神病区分开来,敏感性为58%(50.3%至65.3%),特异性为74.7%(65.2%至82.3%)。
本综述中对质量有限的旧研究的综合分析表明,FRS在75%至95%的时间内能够正确识别精神分裂症患者。使用FRS在分诊中诊断精神分裂症时,每100名有FRS的人中约有5至19人会被错误诊断为精神分裂症,而专家不会认同此诊断。由于他们行为和精神状态的紊乱程度严重,这些人仍值得进行专家评估和帮助。同样,由于FRS的敏感性为60%,在分诊中依靠FRS诊断精神分裂症将无法正确诊断约40%专家认为患有精神分裂症的人。其中一些人可能会在获得适当治疗方面出现延迟。如果分诊依靠FRS的存在来诊断精神分裂症,其他专家认为患有精神分裂症的人可能会过早出院。在已知局限性的情况下,善解人意、谨慎地将FRS用作诊断辅助手段应能避免很大一部分此类错误。我们希望更新的测试——将纳入未来的Cochrane综述——会显示出更好的结果。然而,在没有更新测试的情况下——这适用于大多数疑似精神分裂症患者的初始筛查——一级症状仍然可能有用。FRS仍然是一种针对临床变异性极大的疾病的简单、快速且有用的临床指标。