Suppr超能文献

THINC-it在评估双相抑郁症患者认知功能中的信度与效度

Reliability and Validity of THINC-it in Evaluating Cognitive Function of Patients with Bipolar Depression.

作者信息

Zhang Weihua, Zhu Na, Lai Jianbo, Liu Jingjing, Ng Chee H, Chen Jun, Qian Chao, Du Yanli, Hu Chanchan, Chen Jingkai, Hu Jianbo, Wang Zhong, Zhou Hetong, Xu Yi, Fang Yiru, Shi Chuan, Hu Shaohua

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, People's Republic of China.

Department of Psychiatry, Taizhou Second People's Hospital, Taizhou 317200, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020 Oct 21;16:2419-2428. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S266642. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The THINC-integrated tool (THINC-it) as a brief screening tool can assesses cognitive impairment in patients with major depressive depression (MDD). Here, we aim to evaluate the reliability and validity of the THINC-it in a bipolar depression (BD-D) group in comparison with a healthy control (HC) group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Both groups were matched according to age, gender, years of education, and IQ. All participants completed the THINC-it test, including Spotter, Symbol Check, Codebreaker, Trails, and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire for Depression-5-item (PDQ-5-D). The concurrent validity and internal consistency of the THINC-it test were analyzed, and 30 healthy controls were randomly sampled to retest THINC-it to verify the reliability of the THINC-it retest. The correlation between THINC-it and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients with BD-D and 61 HCs were included for final analysis. There were significant mean difference (MD) standard errors (SE) between two groups in PDQ-5-D, Spotter and Codebreaker (all <0.01), Trails (=0.015). There was no significant difference in Symbol Check (MD (SE)=-0.01 (0.18), =0.938; 95% CI=-0.38 to 0.35). The Cronbach's α of PDQ-5-D was 0.640. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was between 0.440 and 0.757. The highest concurrent validity was PDQ-5-D (r=0.812, <0.001). PDQ-5-D was positively correlated with HAMD-17 and SDS score (<0.01). The objective test had no significant correlation with HAMD-17 and SDS scores (>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study found that THINC-it can accurately present the cognitive impairment of patients with BD-D. It can be potentially applied in assessing the cognitive function of patients with BD-D although Symbol Check may not accurately reflect the level of cognitive function. The concurrent validity and retest reliability are lower than expected, we need to further increase the sample size to study.

摘要

目的

THINC综合工具(THINC-it)作为一种简短的筛查工具,可评估重度抑郁症(MDD)患者的认知障碍。在此,我们旨在评估THINC-it在双相抑郁症(BD-D)组与健康对照组(HC)中的可靠性和有效性。

材料与方法

两组根据年龄、性别、受教育年限和智商进行匹配。所有参与者均完成THINC-it测试,包括Spotter、符号检查、密码破解、连线测试以及抑郁感知缺陷问卷-5项(PDQ-5-D)。分析THINC-it测试的同时效度和内部一致性,并随机抽取30名健康对照者对THINC-it进行重测以验证其重测信度。还分析了THINC-it与汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD-17)和希恩残疾量表(SDS)之间的相关性。

结果

最终纳入58例BD-D患者和61名健康对照者进行分析。两组在PDQ-5-D、Spotter和密码破解方面存在显著的平均差异(MD)标准误(SE)(均<0.01),连线测试(=0.015)。符号检查无显著差异(MD(SE)=-0.01(0.18),=0.938;95%CI=-0.38至0.35)。PDQ-5-D的Cronbach's α为0.640。组内相关系数(ICC)在0.440至0.757之间。同时效度最高的是PDQ-5-D(r=0.812,<0.001)。PDQ-5-D与HAMD-17和SDS评分呈正相关(<0.01)。客观测试与HAMD-17和SDS评分无显著相关性(>0.05)。

结论

本研究发现THINC-it可准确呈现BD-D患者的认知障碍。尽管符号检查可能无法准确反映认知功能水平,但它有可能应用于评估BD-D患者的认知功能。同时效度和重测信度低于预期,我们需要进一步增加样本量进行研究。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

10
Cognition in depression: Can we THINC-it better?抑郁认知:我们能否想得更清楚?
J Affect Disord. 2018 Jan 1;225:559-562. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.080. Epub 2017 Aug 30.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验