Suppr超能文献

[《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(美国精神病学会)和《国际疾病分类》第十版(世界卫生组织)在心境障碍诊断与治疗中的重要性]

[Importance of DSM IV (APA) and ICD-10 (WHO) in diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders].

作者信息

Bourgeois M

机构信息

IPSO, Université de Bordeaux II, Bordeaux.

出版信息

Encephale. 1995 Dec;21 Spec No 5:47-52.

PMID:8582307
Abstract

Since 1993, with ICD-10 (WHO), and 1994, with DSM IV (APA), practitioners have had at their disposal two (practically compatible) classifications of mental disorders containing operational criteria for diagnosis, and helpful in guiding clinical and therapeutic approach. Moreover, the use of one of these classifications (ICD-10) is compulsory in French state psychiatric institutions. We shall try to convince that these manuals are useful, and indeed unavoidable, henceforth, not only for researchers but also for practitioners, for the following reasons: "Any form of order is preferable to chaos" (Lévi Strauss); An implicit classification is always at work, even where the clinician feels he is working by intuition and treating each patient as a unique and individual case. It is not necessarily a bad thing to compare one's own stereotypes with currently held beliefs; All efforts to evaluate treatments, both psychotherapeutic and chemotherapeutic, are now based on these clinical definitions and models. Particularly as regards mood disorders, DSM III and DMS IV have managed to rid us of the uncertainties and contradictions surrounding etiopathogenesis (endogenous? psychogenic? reactive? defensive? adaptive? biological? etc.) which previously ruled out any explanatory classification. There still remain a number of pathological pictures of proven existence but with different levels of significance and different treatments. The bipolar/unipolar distinction (BP/UP) has been strengthened. Major depression (actual "depression", of moderate severity) remains the central model, and exists in both the unipolar and bipolar forms. There is also chronic (more than 2 years) progressive dysthymia (UP) which corresponds almost exactly to "Depressive personality". For bipolar disorders, the distinction between bipolar I disorders and bipolar II disorders, which is now well-documented, has been retained. Cyclothymia (lasting over 2 years) is in a sense the bipolar equivalent of dysthymia. Mixed disorders are distinguished from rapid-cycling bipolar disorders. It is now known that the range of bipolar disorders requires treatment with thymoleptic drugs and that antidepressants should be used only in unipolar disorders, and occasionally in bipolar forms to treat certain acute episodes of depression. Furthermore, many specific clinical forms are defined: postnatal depression, seasonal depression, adaptive difficulties with depressive mood or anxiety and depression, iatrogenic depression or depression related to medication or to intercurrent illnesses. Moreover, criteria are also suggested "for future studies" of post-psychotic depression in schizophrenic patients, minor depression, brief recurrent depressive episodes and anxio-depressive syndrome.

摘要

自1993年采用国际疾病分类第十版(世界卫生组织)以及1994年采用《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(美国精神病学会)以来,从业者便有了两种(实际上相互兼容)的精神障碍分类可供使用,这些分类包含诊断的操作标准,有助于指导临床和治疗方法。此外,在法国国家精神病院,强制使用其中一种分类(国际疾病分类第十版)。我们将试图说明,从今往后,这些手册不仅对研究人员而且对从业者都是有用的,甚至是不可或缺的,原因如下:“任何形式的秩序都优于混乱”(列维·斯特劳斯);即使临床医生觉得自己凭直觉工作,将每个患者视为独特的个体病例,一种隐性分类也始终在起作用。将自己的刻板印象与当前的观念进行比较不一定是坏事;目前,评估心理治疗和化学治疗的所有努力都是基于这些临床定义和模型。特别是在情绪障碍方面,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版和第四版成功消除了围绕病因发病机制(内源性?心因性?反应性?防御性?适应性?生物学性?等等)的不确定性和矛盾,这些不确定性和矛盾以前排除了任何解释性分类。仍然存在一些已证实存在但具有不同显著程度和不同治疗方法的病理情况。双相/单相区分(BP/UP)得到了强化。重度抑郁症(实际的“抑郁症”,中度严重程度)仍然是核心模型,存在于单相和双相形式中。还有慢性(超过2年)进行性心境恶劣障碍(UP),它几乎完全对应于“抑郁性人格”。对于双相情感障碍,现已充分记录的双相I型障碍和双相II型障碍之间的区分得以保留。环性心境障碍(持续超过2年)在某种意义上是心境恶劣障碍的双相等价物。混合性障碍与快速循环型双相情感障碍相区分。现在已知双相情感障碍的范围需要使用心境稳定剂治疗,而抗抑郁药仅应用于单相障碍,偶尔用于双相形式以治疗某些急性抑郁发作。此外,还定义了许多特定的临床形式:产后抑郁症、季节性抑郁症、伴有抑郁情绪或焦虑和抑郁的适应性困难、医源性抑郁症或与药物或并发疾病相关的抑郁症。此外,还提出了“用于未来研究”的精神分裂症患者精神病后抑郁症、轻度抑郁症、短暂复发性抑郁发作和焦虑抑郁综合征的标准。

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