Dumont Cassandra M, Sheridan Laura M, Besancon Emily K, Blattner Meghan, Lopes Fabiana, Kassem Layla, McMahon Francis J
10Center Drive R3D54, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States.
10Center Drive R3D54, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, United States.
J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Apr;123:159-163. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.01.011. Epub 2020 Jan 25.
The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is an established screening tool for bipolar spectrum disorders (BSD), but has not been validated in diverse populations and the best scoring method remains uncertain. This study assessed diagnostic validity of the MDQ among Anabaptists, an underserved population frequently involved in genetic research. 161 participants completed the MDQ and were diagnosed by a best-estimate final diagnosis (BEFD). Diagnostic agreements between alternate MDQ scoring methods and the BEFD were quantified using Cohen's Kappa (κ), sensitivity (α), and specificity (β). Scoring criteria evaluated included >7 simultaneous symptoms and at least moderate impairment, >7 simultaneous symptoms, with at least mild impairment, >7 symptoms only, with no further requirement, and three novel scoring methods that require >5 symptoms or fewer. Diagnostic agreement varied. The original method proved most specific but had the lowest κ and sensitivity. κ increased with more liberal scoring criteria, reaching a maximum under the lower-threshold symptom methods, with little loss of specificity in the 5-symptom method. Decreasing the symptom threshold below 5 conferred little or no benefit. These results support the diagnostic validity of the MDQ among this Anabaptist sample and suggest that a 5-symptom scoring method may increase diagnostic sensitivity in populations at high risk for bipolar disorder.
心境障碍问卷(MDQ)是一种既定的双相谱系障碍(BSD)筛查工具,但尚未在不同人群中得到验证,最佳评分方法仍不确定。本研究评估了MDQ在再洗礼派中的诊断效度,再洗礼派是一个经常参与基因研究但未得到充分服务的人群。161名参与者完成了MDQ,并通过最佳估计最终诊断(BEFD)进行诊断。使用科恩kappa系数(κ)、敏感性(α)和特异性(β)对MDQ替代评分方法与BEFD之间的诊断一致性进行量化。评估的评分标准包括7个以上同时出现的症状且至少有中度损害、7个以上同时出现的症状且至少有轻度损害、仅7个以上症状且无其他要求,以及三种需要5个以上或更少症状的新评分方法。诊断一致性各不相同。原始方法被证明最具特异性,但κ系数和敏感性最低。随着评分标准更加宽松,κ系数增加,在较低阈值症状方法下达到最大值,5症状方法的特异性几乎没有损失。将症状阈值降低到5以下几乎没有益处。这些结果支持了MDQ在这个再洗礼派样本中的诊断效度,并表明5症状评分方法可能会提高双相情感障碍高风险人群的诊断敏感性。