Suppr超能文献

完善谵妄、内科疾病、情感障碍及精神病患者群体中紧张症的研究诊断标准。

Refining Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia Among Delirium, Medical, Affective, and Psychosis Patient Groups.

作者信息

Trzepacz Paula T, Franco José G, Chakrabarti Subho, Ghosh Abhishek, Sahoo Swapnajeet, Chakravarty Rahul, Grover Sandeep

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (Trzepacz); Grupo de Investigación en Psiquiatría de Enlace, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia (Franco); Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India (Chakrabarti, Ghosh, Sahoo, Chakravarty, Grover).

出版信息

J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2025 Winter;37(1):67-78. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230100. Epub 2024 Oct 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The authors proposed catatonia diagnostic criteria that require the presence of three neuropsychiatric symptom clusters, rated over 24 hours; this system differs from other symptom clustering proposals and is intended to increase diagnostic rigor over Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) or DSM-5 criteria.

METHODS

By applying new BFCRS item score thresholds, symptoms were clustered into three categories to comprise the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia (RDCC): akinesia (criterion A), unusual motor signs (criterion B), and behavioral signs (criterion C). RDCC symptom clusters were analyzed in four prospectively evaluated patient groups (delirium, medical, affective, and psychosis) (N=341).

RESULTS

Use of the RDCC, compared with the DSM-5-TR and BFCRS, resulted in far fewer diagnoses of catatonia in the four patient groups: medical, N=1 out of 42 (2%); affective, N=1 out of 45 (2%); psychosis, N=3 out of 53 (6%); and delirium, N=0 out of 201. Permutations of the RDCC with more relaxed criteria were assessed, requiring either symptom thresholds or numbers of symptoms to meet criteria, resulting in catatonia rate gradations between those obtained with the RDCC and those obtained with current systems. The Cochrane Q test found that the DSM-5-TR was not dissimilar to the RDCC, if fulfilling numerical thresholds for criteria A-C, although any level of symptom severity was allowed. Confirmatory factor analysis with three goodness-of-fit indexes validated the RDCC.

CONCLUSIONS

The RDCC requires akinetic symptoms on the basis of literature demonstrating their high BFCRS prevalence and exploratory factor analysis co-loadings, plus symptoms from unusual motor and behavioral signs. Compared with current lenient diagnostic approaches, having the symptoms required by the RDCC produced lower catatonia rates in the psychosis, affective, and medical groups and revealed no patients with catatonia in the delirium group. Subdividing DSM-5-TR symptoms into several different criteria may improve diagnosis. RDCC symptom clusters are both research data-based and amenable to further research for validation.

摘要

目的

作者提出了紧张症诊断标准,该标准要求存在三个神经精神症状群,并在24小时内进行评分;该系统不同于其他症状聚类提议,旨在提高诊断的严谨性,超过布什-弗朗西斯紧张症评定量表(BFCRS)或《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)标准。

方法

通过应用新的BFCRS项目评分阈值,将症状聚类为三类,以构成紧张症研究诊断标准(RDCC):运动不能(标准A)、异常运动体征(标准B)和行为体征(标准C)。在四个前瞻性评估的患者组(谵妄、内科、情感障碍和精神病)(N = 341)中分析了RDCC症状群。

结果

与DSM-5-TR和BFCRS相比,使用RDCC导致四个患者组中紧张症的诊断少得多:内科组,42例中有1例(2%);情感障碍组,45例中有1例(2%);精神病组,53例中有3例(6%);谵妄组,201例中无1例。评估了采用更宽松标准的RDCC变体,要求达到症状阈值或符合标准的症状数量,从而在使用RDCC获得的结果与使用当前系统获得的结果之间产生了紧张症发生率的梯度变化。Cochrane Q检验发现,如果满足标准A-C的数值阈值,DSM-5-TR与RDCC并无差异,尽管允许任何程度的症状严重程度。使用三个拟合优度指标进行的验证性因素分析验证了RDCC。

结论

基于文献证明运动不能症状在BFCRS中的高患病率以及探索性因素分析的共同负荷,RDCC要求存在运动不能症状,外加异常运动和行为体征的症状。与当前宽松的诊断方法相比,具有RDCC要求的症状在精神病、情感障碍和内科组中产生的紧张症发生率较低,并且在谵妄组中未发现紧张症患者。将DSM-5-TR症状细分为几个不同标准可能会改善诊断。RDCC症状群既基于研究数据,又适合进一步研究以进行验证。

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