Andrykowski M A
Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington 40536-0086.
J Behav Med. 1988 Feb;11(1):59-69. doi: 10.1007/BF00846169.
It is important to distinguish patients whose reports of pretreatment nausea and vomiting reflect classically conditioned anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) from those whose reports reflect the influence of other pharmacological and psychological factors. Therefore, Andrykowski (J. Behav. Med. 9: 33-41, 1986) has suggested that only patients who report pretreatment nausea on Day 1 of a chemotherapy cycle be considered to have developed ANV. As part of a prospective, longitudinal investigation of side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy, three groups of patients were identified: those who (a) never reported pretreatment nausea (noPTN), (b) reported pretreatment nausea but never prior to a Day 1 infusion (PTN), and (c) reported pretreatment nausea prior to a Day 1 infusion (PTND1). Discriminant analysis revealed that the PTN and noPTN groups did not differ, while both differed from the PTND1 group, particularly with respect to factors presumed to facilitate classical conditioning. The results justify excluding PTN patients from the criterion group of patients considered to have developed ANV.
区分那些预处理恶心和呕吐报告反映经典条件性预期性恶心和呕吐（ANV）的患者与那些报告反映其他药理和心理因素影响的患者很重要。因此，安德里科夫斯基（《行为医学杂志》9：33 - 41，1986年）建议，只有在化疗周期第1天报告预处理恶心的患者才被认为发生了ANV。作为癌症化疗相关副作用的前瞻性纵向研究的一部分，确定了三组患者：（a）从未报告预处理恶心的患者（无预处理恶心，noPTN），（b）报告了预处理恶心但从未在第1天输液前出现的患者（预处理恶心，PTN），以及（c）在第1天输液前报告预处理恶心的患者（第1天输液前预处理恶心，PTND1）。判别分析显示，PTN组和noPTN组没有差异，而这两组与PTND1组均有差异，特别是在被认为有助于经典条件作用的因素方面。结果证明将PTN患者排除在被认为发生了ANV的标准患者组之外是合理的。
