Suppr超能文献

抗精神病药恶性综合征国际共识诊断标准的验证研究

A Validation Study of the International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome.

作者信息

Gurrera Ronald J, Mortillaro Gino, Velamoor Varadaraj, Caroff Stanley N

机构信息

From the *VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston MA; †Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, ‡Boston Children's Hospital, Boston MA; §Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; ∥Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

出版信息

J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2017 Feb;37(1):67-71. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000000640.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome requires prompt recognition for effective management, but there are no established diagnostic criteria. This is the first validation study of recently published international expert consensus (IEC) diagnostic criteria, which include priority points assigned on the basis of the importance of each criterion for making a diagnosis of neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

METHODS

Data were extracted from 221 archived telephone contact reports of clinician-initiated calls to a national telephone consultation service from 1997 to 2009; each case was given a total priority point score on the basis of the IEC criteria. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, (DSM-IV-TR) research criteria, in original form and modified to accept less than "severe" rigidity, served as the primary diagnostic reference standard. Consultants' diagnostic impressions were used as a secondary reference standard. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to optimize the priority point cutoff score with respect to the reference standards.

RESULTS

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.715 (95% confidence interval, 0.645-0.785; P = 1.62 × 10) for consultant diagnoses to 0.857 (95% confidence interval, 0.808-0.907; P < 5 × 10) for modified DSM-IV-TR criteria. The latter was associated with 69.6% sensitivity and 90.7% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Agreement was best between IEC criteria with a cutoff score of 74 and modified DSM-IV-TR criteria (sensitivity, 69.6%; specificity, 90.7%); this cutoff score demonstrated the highest agreement in all comparisons. Consultant diagnoses showed much better agreement with modified, compared with original, DSM-IV-TR criteria, suggesting that the DSM-IV-TR criterion of "severe" rigidity may be more restrictive than what most knowledgeable clinicians use in practice.

摘要

背景

神经阻滞剂恶性综合征需要迅速识别以便有效治疗,但尚无既定的诊断标准。这是对最近发表的国际专家共识(IEC)诊断标准的首次验证研究,该标准包括根据每个标准对诊断神经阻滞剂恶性综合征的重要性分配的优先点。

方法

数据来自1997年至2009年临床医生拨打国家电话咨询服务热线的221份存档电话联系报告;根据IEC标准为每个病例给出总优先点分数。《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版,修订版(DSM-IV-TR)研究标准,以原始形式并修改为接受低于“严重”的强直,作为主要诊断参考标准。咨询医生的诊断印象用作次要参考标准。使用受试者操作特征曲线分析来优化相对于参考标准的优先点截止分数。

结果

受试者操作特征曲线下面积范围从咨询医生诊断的0.715(95%置信区间,0.645 - 0.785;P = 1.62×10)到修改后的DSM-IV-TR标准的0.857(95%置信区间,0.808 - 0.907;P < 5×10)。后者的敏感性为69.6%,特异性为90.7%。

结论

IEC标准截止分数为74与修改后的DSM-IV-TR标准之间的一致性最佳(敏感性,69.6%;特异性,90.7%);该截止分数在所有比较中显示出最高的一致性。与原始的DSM-IV-TR标准相比,咨询医生的诊断与修改后的标准显示出更好的一致性,这表明“严重”强直的DSM-IV-TR标准可能比大多数知识渊博的临床医生在实践中使用的标准更具限制性。

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