Dean C, Surtees P G, Sashidharan S P
Br J Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;142:247-56. doi: 10.1192/bjp.142.3.247.
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.
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。
