• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

确定人格障碍的严重程度。

Establishing the severity of personality disorder.

作者信息

Tyrer P, Johnson T

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Imperial College School of Medicine at St. Mary's, London, U.K.

出版信息

Am J Psychiatry. 1996 Dec;153(12):1593-7. doi: 10.1176/ajp.153.12.1593.

DOI:10.1176/ajp.153.12.1593
PMID:8942456
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The authors developed a simplified method of rating the severity of personality disorder.

METHOD

The new rating method is based on four levels of severity: no personality disorder, personality difficulty, simple personality disorder, and diffuse personality disorder. The new method was applied to different diagnostic systems and was then compared with an old rating system based on six severity levels. Data were derived from a longitudinal study in which 163 patients with anxiety and depressive disorders had initial assessments of personality status and were followed up over 2 years. Ratings of psychiatric symptoms were made by using the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale over this period. The results were analyzed with special attention to linear and quadratic trends.

RESULTS

The new system was clinically useful in separating patients' initial assessments and outcomes. Patients with no personality disorder had the lowest initial symptom scores and the best outcomes, and those with diffuse personality disorder had the highest initial levels of symptoms and improved least over the 2 years. When the patients were separated by the old classification system, 72% of the variation between groups was accounted for by linear and quadratic trends; the comparable percentage was 97% when the patients were categorized by the new system.

CONCLUSIONS

The new system of rating severity of personality disturbance is an improvement on existing methods and allows ratings to be made easily from DSM-IV and ICD-10.

摘要

目的

作者研发了一种简化的人格障碍严重程度评定方法。

方法

新的评定方法基于四个严重程度级别:无人格障碍、人格困难、单纯人格障碍和弥散性人格障碍。该新方法应用于不同的诊断系统,然后与基于六个严重程度级别的旧评定系统进行比较。数据来源于一项纵向研究,其中163名焦虑和抑郁障碍患者进行了人格状态的初始评估,并随访了2年。在此期间,使用综合精神病理学评定量表对精神症状进行评定。对结果进行分析时特别关注线性和二次趋势。

结果

新系统在区分患者的初始评估和结果方面具有临床实用性。无人格障碍的患者初始症状评分最低,预后最佳,而弥散性人格障碍的患者初始症状水平最高,在两年内改善最少。当按照旧分类系统对患者进行分类时,组间差异的72%可由线性和二次趋势解释;而按照新系统对患者进行分类时,这一可比百分比为97%。

结论

新的人格障碍严重程度评定系统是对现有方法的改进,能够轻松根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)和《国际疾病分类》第十版(ICD-10)进行评定。

相似文献

1
Establishing the severity of personality disorder.确定人格障碍的严重程度。
Am J Psychiatry. 1996 Dec;153(12):1593-7. doi: 10.1176/ajp.153.12.1593.
2
Ten-year stability of depressive personality disorder in depressed outpatients.门诊抑郁症患者中抑郁性人格障碍的十年稳定性
Am J Psychiatry. 2006 May;163(5):865-71. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.5.865.
3
Development and validation of a new procedure for the diagnostic assessment of personality disorder: the Multidimensional Personality Disorder Rating Scale (MPDRS).一种用于人格障碍诊断评估的新方法的开发与验证:多维人格障碍评定量表(MPDRS)。
J Pers Disord. 2008 Jun;22(3):246-58. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2008.22.3.246.
4
Personality diagnoses in adolescence: DSM-IV axis II diagnoses and an empirically derived alternative.青少年期的人格诊断:《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第四版》轴II诊断及一种基于实证得出的替代方法。
Am J Psychiatry. 2003 May;160(5):952-66. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.5.952.
5
Personality assessment in DSM-5: empirical support for rating severity, style, and traits.DSM-5 中的人格评估:对严重程度、风格和特质进行评分的实证支持。
J Pers Disord. 2011 Jun;25(3):305-20. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305.
6
Comparison of a diagnostic checklist with a structured interview for the assessment of DSM-III-R and ICD-10 personality disorders.用于评估《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(DSM-III-R)和《国际疾病分类》第十版(ICD-10)人格障碍的诊断清单与结构化访谈的比较。
Psychopathology. 1994;27(6):312-20. doi: 10.1159/000284889.
7
Refining personality disorder diagnosis: integrating science and practice.完善人格障碍诊断:整合科学与实践。
Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Aug;161(8):1350-65. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1350.
8
A comparison of DSM-III-R and ICD-10 personality disorder criteria in an out-patient population.门诊人群中《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(DSM-III-R)与《国际疾病分类》第十版(ICD-10)人格障碍标准的比较。
Psychol Med. 1996 Jan;26(1):151-60. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700033791.
9
Rating of personality disorder features in popular movie characters.热门电影角色中人格障碍特征的评定
BMC Psychiatry. 2005 Dec 8;5:45. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-5-45.
10
A profile analysis of personality disorders: beyond multiple diagnoses.人格障碍的概况分析:超越多重诊断
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1999 Jun;53(3):373-80. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.1999.00560.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Preconception parental personality disorder and psychosocial outcomes during the perinatal period: a prospective population-based study.孕前父母人格障碍与围产期心理社会结局:一项基于人群的前瞻性研究。
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2025 Jul 29. doi: 10.1007/s00127-025-02968-3.
2
The dark side of personality functioning: associations between antisocial cognitions, personality functioning (AMPD), empathy and mentalisation.人格功能的阴暗面:反社会认知、人格功能(AMPD)、同理心与心理化之间的关联
Front Psychiatry. 2024 May 28;15:1377177. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1377177. eCollection 2024.
3
Personality disorders: the impact of severity on societal costs.
人格障碍:严重程度对社会成本的影响。
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2025 Feb;275(1):181-192. doi: 10.1007/s00406-023-01715-6. Epub 2023 Nov 22.
4
Severity in the ICD-11 personality disorder model: Evaluation in a Spanish mixed sample.国际疾病分类第11版人格障碍模型中的严重程度:西班牙混合样本评估。
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 9;13:1015489. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1015489. eCollection 2022.
5
Maladaptive Self- and Interpersonal Functioning Increments General Psychiatric Severity in the Association with Adolescent Personality Pathology.适应不良的自我及人际功能会增加青少年人格病理学相关的一般精神疾病严重程度。
Children (Basel). 2023 Jan 6;10(1):120. doi: 10.3390/children10010120.
6
Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1).爱沙尼亚版《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版人格功能半结构化访谈(STiP-5.1)的心理测量评估
Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2022 Dec 1;9(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s40479-022-00197-7.
7
The interplay of Criterion A of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, mentalization and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.人格障碍替代模型的A标准、心理化与新冠疫情期间心理韧性之间的相互作用
Front Psychol. 2022 Jul 25;13:928540. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928540. eCollection 2022.
8
A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of the global prevalence of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.强迫型人格障碍全球患病率的荟萃分析与元回归分析。
Heliyon. 2022 Jul 12;8(7):e09912. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09912. eCollection 2022 Jul.
9
The incremental utility of maladaptive self and identity functioning over general functioning for borderline personality disorder features in adolescents.青少年边缘型人格障碍特征中,适应不良的自我和身份功能对一般功能的增量效用。
Personal Disord. 2022 Sep;13(5):474-481. doi: 10.1037/per0000547. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
10
Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample.《国际疾病分类第11版》中的人格障碍:PiCD和SASPD在混合社区与临床样本中的西班牙语验证
Assessment. 2021 Apr;28(3):759-772. doi: 10.1177/1073191120936357. Epub 2020 Jun 25.