Mouridsen S E, Rich B, Isager T
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Br J Psychiatry. 1998 Mar;172:263-7. doi: 10.1192/bjp.172.3.263.
Empirical evidence for the validity of the diagnostic label disintegrative psychosis is sparse. The issue of whether it is a separate form of infantile autism is unresolved.
To investigate the validity of disintegrative psychosis as defined in ICD-9, the natural history of 13 cases were compared with 39 matched cases of infantile autism on various outcome variables. Average follow-up time was 22 (11-33) years.
Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of number of admissions to non-psychiatric departments, occurrence of comorbid epilepsy, social style, and score on the Global Assessment of Functioning scale. In most other areas assessed there was a tendency, although statistically insignificant, towards a better outcome in the infantile autism comparison group.
Our findings provide some support for maintaining a diagnostic category of disintegrative psychosis as distinct from infantile autism.
关于“瓦解性精神病”这一诊断标签有效性的实证证据稀少。它是否为儿童自闭症的一种独立形式这一问题尚未解决。
为调查《国际疾病分类第九版》(ICD - 9)中定义的瓦解性精神病的有效性,将13例患者的自然病史与39例匹配的儿童自闭症病例在各种结局变量上进行比较。平均随访时间为22(11 - 33)年。
两组在非精神科住院次数、合并癫痫的发生率、社交方式以及功能总体评定量表得分方面存在统计学显著差异。在评估的大多数其他领域,尽管在统计学上不显著,但儿童自闭症比较组有取得更好结局的趋势。
我们的研究结果为将瓦解性精神病作为与儿童自闭症不同的诊断类别保留提供了一些支持。