创伤后应激障碍的心理和药物治疗

Christopher P. Freeman
{"title":"创伤后应激障碍的心理和药物治疗","authors":"Christopher P. Freeman","doi":"10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>Since the last edition of this review, there has been an impressive body of new evidence adding to our knowledge of psychological treatments. There have also been two new major reviews covering the complete range of available treatments: the second edition of the guidelines from the International Society for </span>Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) and the US Institute of Medicine's review. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines were published before the last edition of this article, and there are currently no plans to revise them. However, the Australian guidelines build on the NICE guidelines, and provide the most comprehensive and user-friendly clinical guidance currently available. It is fascinating that such major and thorough reviews have arrived at different conclusions. The Institute of Medicine endorses trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) and prolonged exposure but not </span>eye movement desensitization and reprocessing<span> (EMDR) or drug treatment; NICE endorses TF-CBT and EMDR but not drugs; and the ISTSS guidelines, second edition, endorses drugs, EMDR, and TF-CBT. What is the bewildered therapist to do? Hopefully this review will clarify some of these issues. In truth, the discrepancy arises not because these learned and expert bodies have been perverse, negligent, or biased in their reviewing, but largely because they differ in what they have regarded as a clinically significant difference between two interventions as opposed to a statistical difference.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":88653,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)","volume":"8 8","pages":"Pages 301-309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.06.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological and drug therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder\",\"authors\":\"Christopher P. Freeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span><span>Since the last edition of this review, there has been an impressive body of new evidence adding to our knowledge of psychological treatments. There have also been two new major reviews covering the complete range of available treatments: the second edition of the guidelines from the International Society for </span>Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) and the US Institute of Medicine's review. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines were published before the last edition of this article, and there are currently no plans to revise them. However, the Australian guidelines build on the NICE guidelines, and provide the most comprehensive and user-friendly clinical guidance currently available. It is fascinating that such major and thorough reviews have arrived at different conclusions. The Institute of Medicine endorses trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) and prolonged exposure but not </span>eye movement desensitization and reprocessing<span> (EMDR) or drug treatment; NICE endorses TF-CBT and EMDR but not drugs; and the ISTSS guidelines, second edition, endorses drugs, EMDR, and TF-CBT. What is the bewildered therapist to do? Hopefully this review will clarify some of these issues. In truth, the discrepancy arises not because these learned and expert bodies have been perverse, negligent, or biased in their reviewing, but largely because they differ in what they have regarded as a clinically significant difference between two interventions as opposed to a statistical difference.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 8\",\"pages\":\"Pages 301-309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.mppsy.2009.06.001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476179309001098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476179309001098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自上一期评论以来,有大量令人印象深刻的新证据增加了我们对心理治疗的认识。还有两个新的主要评论涵盖了所有可用的治疗方法:国际创伤应激研究协会(ISTSS)指南的第二版和美国医学研究所的评论。国家临床卓越研究所(NICE)指南在本文最后一版之前发布,目前没有修改的计划。然而,澳大利亚指南建立在NICE指南的基础上,提供了目前可用的最全面和用户友好的临床指导。令人着迷的是,如此重大而彻底的审查得出了不同的结论。医学研究所支持以创伤为重点的认知行为疗法(TF-CBT)和长时间暴露,但不支持眼动脱敏和再处理(EMDR)或药物治疗;NICE支持TF-CBT和EMDR,但不支持药物;ISTSS指南,第二版,支持药物,EMDR和TF-CBT。困惑的治疗师该怎么办?希望这篇综述能澄清其中的一些问题。事实上,这种差异的产生并不是因为这些学识渊博的专家机构在他们的审查中有反常、疏忽或偏见,而主要是因为他们认为两种干预措施之间存在临床显著差异,而不是统计差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychological and drug therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder

Since the last edition of this review, there has been an impressive body of new evidence adding to our knowledge of psychological treatments. There have also been two new major reviews covering the complete range of available treatments: the second edition of the guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) and the US Institute of Medicine's review. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines were published before the last edition of this article, and there are currently no plans to revise them. However, the Australian guidelines build on the NICE guidelines, and provide the most comprehensive and user-friendly clinical guidance currently available. It is fascinating that such major and thorough reviews have arrived at different conclusions. The Institute of Medicine endorses trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) and prolonged exposure but not eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or drug treatment; NICE endorses TF-CBT and EMDR but not drugs; and the ISTSS guidelines, second edition, endorses drugs, EMDR, and TF-CBT. What is the bewildered therapist to do? Hopefully this review will clarify some of these issues. In truth, the discrepancy arises not because these learned and expert bodies have been perverse, negligent, or biased in their reviewing, but largely because they differ in what they have regarded as a clinically significant difference between two interventions as opposed to a statistical difference.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信