Suppr超能文献

基于原型和国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)操作标准的精神障碍诊断的评估者内kappa准确性:门诊环境横断面研究的简要报告

Intra-rater Kappa Accuracy of Prototype and ICD-10 Operational Criteria-Based Diagnoses for Mental Disorders: A Brief Report of a Cross-Sectional Study in an Outpatient Setting.

作者信息

Rocha Neto Helio G, Sinem Tomas Boldrini, Koiller Luisa Mendez, Pereira Amanda Machado, de Souza Gomes Bianca Marques, Veloso Filho Carlos Linhares, Cavalcanti Maria T, Telles-Correia Diogo

机构信息

Programa de Pós Graduação em Psiquiatria e Saúde Mental - PROPSAM, Instituto de Psiquiatria, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Programa de Doutoramento do Centro Acadêmico de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa - CAMLPHD, Lisbon, Portugal.

出版信息

Front Psychiatry. 2022 Mar 2;13:793743. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.793743. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The use of "operational criteria" is a solution for low reliability, contrasting with a prototypical classification that is used in clinics. We aim to measure the reliability of prototypical and ICD-10 diagnoses.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study, with a convenience sample of subjects treated in a university clinic. Residents reviewed their diagnosis using ICD-10 criteria, and Cohen's kappa statistic was performed on operational and prototype diagnoses.

RESULTS

Three out of 30 residents participated, reviewing 146 subjects under their care. Diagnoses were grouped in eight classes: organic (diagnoses from F00 to F09), substance disorders (F10-F19), schizophrenia spectrum disorders (F20-F29), bipolar affective disorder (F30, F31, F34.0, F38.1), depression (F32, F33), anxiety-related disorders (F40-F49), personality disorders (F60-F69), and neurodevelopmental disorders (F70-F99). Overall, agreement was high [ = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69-0.85], with a lower agreement related to personality disorders ( = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.38-0.76) and higher with schizophrenia spectrum disorders ( = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82-0.99).

DISCUSSION

Use of ICD-10 criteria did not significantly increase the number of diagnoses. It changed few diagnoses, implying that operational criteria were irrelevant to clinical opinion. This suggests that reliability among interviewers is more related to information gathering than diagnostic definitions. Also, it suggests an incorporation of diagnostic criteria according to training, which then became part of the clinician's prototypes. Residents should be trained in the use of diagnostic categories, but presence/absence checking is not needed to achieve operational compatible diagnoses.

摘要

背景与目的

使用“操作标准”是解决可靠性低问题的一种方法,这与临床中使用的典型分类法形成对比。我们旨在衡量典型诊断和国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)诊断的可靠性。

方法

这是一项回顾性研究,采用大学诊所治疗的受试者便利样本。住院医师使用ICD - 10标准回顾他们的诊断,并对操作诊断和原型诊断进行科恩kappa统计分析。

结果

30名住院医师中有3人参与,回顾了他们所护理的146名受试者。诊断分为八类:器质性疾病(F00至F09编码的诊断)、物质相关障碍(F10 - F19)、精神分裂症谱系障碍(F20 - F29)、双相情感障碍(F30、F31、F34.0、F38.1)、抑郁症(F32、F33)、焦虑相关障碍(F40 - F49)、人格障碍(F60 - F69)以及神经发育障碍(F70 - F99)。总体而言,一致性较高(κ = 0.77,95%置信区间[CI] = 0.69 - 0.85),其中人格障碍的一致性较低(κ = 0.58,95% CI = 0.38 - 0.76),精神分裂症谱系障碍的一致性较高(κ = 0.91,95% CI = 0.82 - 0.99)。

讨论

使用ICD - 10标准并没有显著增加诊断数量。它改变的诊断很少,这意味着操作标准与临床意见无关。这表明访谈者之间的可靠性更多地与信息收集而非诊断定义相关。此外,这表明应根据培训纳入诊断标准,这些标准随后成为临床医生原型的一部分。住院医师应接受诊断类别的使用培训,但无需进行存在/不存在检查以实现操作上兼容的诊断。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2648/8924129/69398592a35f/fpsyt-13-793743-g0001.jpg

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