癫痫和精神性非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的隐喻语言:是时候向前迈进了

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia
{"title":"癫痫和精神性非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的隐喻语言:是时候向前迈进了","authors":"Lina Urh ,&nbsp;Daniele Piscitelli ,&nbsp;Massimiliano Beghi ,&nbsp;Silvia Diotti ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Erba ,&nbsp;Adriana Magaudda ,&nbsp;Mikhail Zinchuk ,&nbsp;Alla Guekht ,&nbsp;Cesare Maria Cornaggia","doi":"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36558,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100639"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward\",\"authors\":\"Lina Urh ,&nbsp;Daniele Piscitelli ,&nbsp;Massimiliano Beghi ,&nbsp;Silvia Diotti ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Erba ,&nbsp;Adriana Magaudda ,&nbsp;Mikhail Zinchuk ,&nbsp;Alla Guekht ,&nbsp;Cesare Maria Cornaggia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100639\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

隐喻语言(ML)的会话分析(CA)已被提议作为癫痫(ES)和精神性非癫痫发作(PNES)的鉴别诊断工具。然而,隐喻概念化的临床意义尚未得到明确界定。本研究旨在调查多国样本中 ES 和 PNES 患者使用的 ML。两名盲人研究人员检查了 54 位 ES 和 PNES 患者(意大利,29 人;美国,11 人;俄罗斯,14 人)的访谈记录和视频,确定了代表患者内心体验的患者与癫痫发作的关系。诊断以视频脑电图为依据。隐喻分为 "空间/地点"、"外力"、"自愿行为 "和 "其他"。共识别出 175 个隐喻。在隐喻出现方面,ES 和 PNES 患者之间未发现差异(χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74)。在比较 ES 患者和 PNES 患者使用的隐喻类型时,未发现差异。PNES 患者和 ES 患者在 ML 的出现率和类别方面并无差异。因此,研究人员和临床医生在使用隐喻概念进行诊断时应慎重考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward

Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.

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
Epilepsy and Behavior Reports
Epilepsy and Behavior Reports Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
54
审稿时长
50 days
×
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