Suppr超能文献

爱丁堡社区样本中研究诊断系统的比较。

Comparison of research diagnostic systems in an Edinburgh community sample.

作者信息

Dean C, Surtees P G, Sashidharan S P

出版信息

Br J Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;142:247-56. doi: 10.1192/bjp.142.3.247.

Abstract

Four research diagnostic schemes are compared in one community sample. The prevalence of psychiatric disorder ranged from 8.7 per cent (ID-Catego, threshold and definite) through 13.7 per cent (RDC, probable and definite) to 20.3 per cent (Bedford, borderline and definite). The main comparison made is between the PSE/ID/Catego and SADS/RDC systems. Sixty-one per cent of cases are identified as such by both these schemes. There is poor agreement about labelling; only 56 per cent of cases of depression and 16.7 per cent of cases of anxiety are so diagnosed by both systems. A post hoc check list was used to identify Bedford cases; all bar one were found to fulfil RDC and PSE case criteria. The results are compared with those from other centres which have used the same diagnostic criteria in community studies.

摘要

在一个社区样本中对四种研究诊断方案进行了比较。精神障碍的患病率从8.7%(ID - Catego,阈值和确诊)到13.7%(RDC,可能和确诊)再到20.3%(贝德福德,边缘和确诊)不等。主要比较的是PSE/ID/Catego和SADS/RDC系统。这两种方案都将61%的病例认定为此类。在标签标注方面一致性较差;两种系统都诊断为抑郁症的病例仅占56%,诊断为焦虑症的病例仅占16.7%。使用了一份事后检查表来识别贝德福德病例;除一例之外,所有病例均符合RDC和PSE病例标准。将结果与其他在社区研究中使用相同诊断标准的中心所得结果进行了比较。

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