Suppr超能文献

边缘性综合征。一、三种诊断系统的测试

The borderline syndrome. I. Testing three diagnostic systems.

作者信息

McGlashan T H

出版信息

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Dec;40(12):1311-8. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790110053010.

Abstract

Diagnostic systems require testing on several factors: reliability, comprehensiveness, concordance with established use, specificity, and validity. Three sets of diagnostic criteria for the borderline have been proposed recently: the Gunderson et al criteria, the DSM-III criteria for borderline personality (BP) disorder, and the DSM-III criteria for schizotypal personality (SP) disorder. This article reviews work to date testing these systems on these factors. New data are presented from the retrospective application of these criteria to the clinical records of 400 diagnostically heterogeneous former inpatients at Chestnut Lodge, Rockville, Md; 330 of them also received systematic follow-up by interview an average of 15 years after discharge. Results strongly supported the validity of the DSM-III division of borderline into BP and SP. Although the BP and Gunderson et al criteria demonstrated high concordance, the latter appeared to offer some slight advantages for defining BP disorder.

摘要

诊断系统需要在几个因素上进行测试

可靠性、全面性、与既定用途的一致性、特异性和有效性。最近提出了三套边缘型人格障碍的诊断标准:冈德森等人的标准、《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版(DSM-III)中边缘型人格(BP)障碍的标准以及分裂型人格(SP)障碍的标准。本文回顾了迄今为止在这些因素上对这些系统进行测试的工作。文中呈现了新的数据,这些数据来自于将这些标准回顾性应用于马里兰州罗克维尔市栗树旅馆400名诊断各异的 former 住院患者的临床记录;其中330人在出院后平均15年还接受了系统的随访访谈。结果有力地支持了DSM-III将边缘型人格障碍分为BP和SP的有效性。虽然BP标准和冈德森等人的标准显示出高度一致性,但后者在定义BP障碍方面似乎有一些细微优势。 (注:原文中“former”在这里似乎有误,可能是“former”,猜测为“former”,翻译为“既往的” )

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