Smith G C, Strain J J, Hammer J S, Wallack J J, Bialer P A, Schleifer S S, McKenzie D P
Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Psychosomatics. 1997 Jul-Aug;38(4):363-73. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(97)71444-0.
Interventions recommended by consultation-liaison psychiatrists for inpatients they diagnosed as having DSM-III-R organic mental disorder (OMD) were studied to see to what extent specific variables distinguished the OMD patients and differentiated the subgroups of patients with OMD. Prospective data and Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores on 625 consecutive referrals at 3 general hospitals in Australia and the United States were collected by using the MICRO-CARES database system. The OMD group differed from the other patients because they were significantly more likely to have been referred for "organic brain syndrome" or "agitation," had less mood disorder and lower MMSE scores, and received more recommendations for antipsychotics and for ward-environment manipulation and fewer recommendations for psychological management. The many differences among the OMD subgroups were also consistent with their DSM constructs. A pilot exploration of the validity of the DSM-IV constructs of cognitive disorder and its subgroups performed on the redistributed data suggested that these constructs have similar usefulness.
对会诊联络精神科医生为他们诊断为患有《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本(DSM-III-R)器质性精神障碍(OMD)的住院患者所推荐的干预措施进行了研究,以观察特定变量在何种程度上区分了OMD患者,并区分了OMD患者的亚组。通过使用MICRO-CARES数据库系统,收集了澳大利亚和美国3家综合医院连续625例转诊患者的前瞻性数据和简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)评分。OMD组与其他患者不同,因为他们因“器质性脑综合征”或“激越”被转诊的可能性显著更高,情绪障碍较少,MMSE评分较低,并且接受抗精神病药物和病房环境管理的建议更多,而接受心理管理的建议更少。OMD亚组之间的许多差异也与其DSM结构一致。对重新分配的数据进行的关于DSM-IV认知障碍结构及其亚组有效性的初步探索表明,这些结构具有相似的效用。