在谵妄、内科、情感和精神病患者群体中完善紧张症的研究诊断标准。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Paula T Trzepacz, José G Franco, Subho Chakrabarti, Abhishek Ghosh, Swapnajeet Sahoo, Rahul Chakravarty, Sandeep Grover
{"title":"在谵妄、内科、情感和精神病患者群体中完善紧张症的研究诊断标准。","authors":"Paula T Trzepacz, José G Franco, Subho Chakrabarti, Abhishek Ghosh, Swapnajeet Sahoo, Rahul Chakravarty, Sandeep Grover","doi":"10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors proposed catatonia diagnostic criteria that require the presence of three neuropsychiatric symptom clusters, rated over 24 hours; this system differs from other symptom clustering proposals and is intended to increase diagnostic rigor over Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) or DSM-5 criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By applying new BFCRS item score thresholds, symptoms were clustered into three categories to comprise the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia (RDCC): akinesia (criterion A), unusual motor signs (criterion B), and behavioral signs (criterion C). RDCC symptom clusters were analyzed in four prospectively evaluated patient groups (delirium, medical, affective, and psychosis) (N=341).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Use of the RDCC, compared with the DSM-5-TR and BFCRS, resulted in far fewer diagnoses of catatonia in the four patient groups: medical, N=1 out of 42 (2%); affective, N=1 out of 45 (2%); psychosis, N=3 out of 53 (6%); and delirium, N=0 out of 201. Permutations of the RDCC with more relaxed criteria were assessed, requiring either symptom thresholds or numbers of symptoms to meet criteria, resulting in catatonia rate gradations between those obtained with the RDCC and those obtained with current systems. The Cochrane Q test found that the DSM-5-TR was not dissimilar to the RDCC, if fulfilling numerical thresholds for criteria A-C, although any level of symptom severity was allowed. Confirmatory factor analysis with three goodness-of-fit indexes validated the RDCC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The RDCC requires akinetic symptoms on the basis of literature demonstrating their high BFCRS prevalence and exploratory factor analysis co-loadings, plus symptoms from unusual motor and behavioral signs. Compared with current lenient diagnostic approaches, having the symptoms required by the RDCC produced lower catatonia rates in the psychosis, affective, and medical groups and revealed no patients with catatonia in the delirium group. Subdividing DSM-5-TR symptoms into several different criteria may improve diagnosis. RDCC symptom clusters are both research data-based and amenable to further research for validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"appineuropsych20230100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refining Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia Among Delirium, Medical, Affective, and Psychosis Patient Groups.\",\"authors\":\"Paula T Trzepacz, José G Franco, Subho Chakrabarti, Abhishek Ghosh, Swapnajeet Sahoo, Rahul Chakravarty, Sandeep Grover\",\"doi\":\"10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors proposed catatonia diagnostic criteria that require the presence of three neuropsychiatric symptom clusters, rated over 24 hours; this system differs from other symptom clustering proposals and is intended to increase diagnostic rigor over Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) or DSM-5 criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By applying new BFCRS item score thresholds, symptoms were clustered into three categories to comprise the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia (RDCC): akinesia (criterion A), unusual motor signs (criterion B), and behavioral signs (criterion C). RDCC symptom clusters were analyzed in four prospectively evaluated patient groups (delirium, medical, affective, and psychosis) (N=341).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Use of the RDCC, compared with the DSM-5-TR and BFCRS, resulted in far fewer diagnoses of catatonia in the four patient groups: medical, N=1 out of 42 (2%); affective, N=1 out of 45 (2%); psychosis, N=3 out of 53 (6%); and delirium, N=0 out of 201. Permutations of the RDCC with more relaxed criteria were assessed, requiring either symptom thresholds or numbers of symptoms to meet criteria, resulting in catatonia rate gradations between those obtained with the RDCC and those obtained with current systems. The Cochrane Q test found that the DSM-5-TR was not dissimilar to the RDCC, if fulfilling numerical thresholds for criteria A-C, although any level of symptom severity was allowed. Confirmatory factor analysis with three goodness-of-fit indexes validated the RDCC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The RDCC requires akinetic symptoms on the basis of literature demonstrating their high BFCRS prevalence and exploratory factor analysis co-loadings, plus symptoms from unusual motor and behavioral signs. Compared with current lenient diagnostic approaches, having the symptoms required by the RDCC produced lower catatonia rates in the psychosis, affective, and medical groups and revealed no patients with catatonia in the delirium group. Subdividing DSM-5-TR symptoms into several different criteria may improve diagnosis. RDCC symptom clusters are both research data-based and amenable to further research for validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"appineuropsych20230100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230100\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.20230100","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:作者提出的紧张症诊断标准要求在24小时内出现三个神经精神症状群;该系统不同于其他症状群提议,旨在提高诊断的严谨性,而非布什-弗朗西斯紧张症评定量表(Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale,BFCRS)或DSM-5标准:方法:通过应用新的布什-弗朗西斯卡他性评定量表(BFCRS)项目评分阈值,将症状分为三类,组成卡他性障碍研究诊断标准(RDCC):运动障碍(标准 A)、异常运动征象(标准 B)和行为征象(标准 C)。对四组前瞻性评估患者(谵妄、内科、情感和精神病)的 RDCC 症状群进行了分析(N=341):结果:与 DSM-5-TR 和 BFCRS 相比,使用 RDCC 诊断出的四组患者中紧张性精神障碍的人数要少得多:内科,42 人中有 1 人(2%);情感,45 人中有 1 人(2%);精神病,53 人中有 3 人(6%);谵妄,201 人中有 0 人。我们评估了具有更宽松标准的 RDCC 的排列组合,要求症状阈值或症状数量符合标准,从而得出 RDCC 和当前系统得出的紧张症发生率之间的分级。Cochrane Q 检验发现,如果符合标准 A-C 的数字阈值,DSM-5-TR 与 RDCC 并无差别,尽管允许任何症状严重程度。使用三个拟合优度指数进行的确认性因子分析验证了 RDCC:RDCC需要动眼神经症状,其依据是文献证明其在BFCRS中的高流行率和探索性因子分析的共同负荷,以及异常运动和行为体征的症状。与当前宽松的诊断方法相比,具备 RDCC 所要求的症状会降低精神病组、情感组和内科组的紧张症发生率,并且在谵妄组中没有发现紧张症患者。将 DSM-5-TR 的症状细分为几个不同的标准可能会改善诊断。RDCC 症状群既以研究数据为基础,又适合进一步研究验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Refining Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia Among Delirium, Medical, Affective, and Psychosis Patient Groups.

Objective: The authors proposed catatonia diagnostic criteria that require the presence of three neuropsychiatric symptom clusters, rated over 24 hours; this system differs from other symptom clustering proposals and is intended to increase diagnostic rigor over Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) or DSM-5 criteria.

Methods: By applying new BFCRS item score thresholds, symptoms were clustered into three categories to comprise the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Catatonia (RDCC): akinesia (criterion A), unusual motor signs (criterion B), and behavioral signs (criterion C). RDCC symptom clusters were analyzed in four prospectively evaluated patient groups (delirium, medical, affective, and psychosis) (N=341).

Results: Use of the RDCC, compared with the DSM-5-TR and BFCRS, resulted in far fewer diagnoses of catatonia in the four patient groups: medical, N=1 out of 42 (2%); affective, N=1 out of 45 (2%); psychosis, N=3 out of 53 (6%); and delirium, N=0 out of 201. Permutations of the RDCC with more relaxed criteria were assessed, requiring either symptom thresholds or numbers of symptoms to meet criteria, resulting in catatonia rate gradations between those obtained with the RDCC and those obtained with current systems. The Cochrane Q test found that the DSM-5-TR was not dissimilar to the RDCC, if fulfilling numerical thresholds for criteria A-C, although any level of symptom severity was allowed. Confirmatory factor analysis with three goodness-of-fit indexes validated the RDCC.

Conclusions: The RDCC requires akinetic symptoms on the basis of literature demonstrating their high BFCRS prevalence and exploratory factor analysis co-loadings, plus symptoms from unusual motor and behavioral signs. Compared with current lenient diagnostic approaches, having the symptoms required by the RDCC produced lower catatonia rates in the psychosis, affective, and medical groups and revealed no patients with catatonia in the delirium group. Subdividing DSM-5-TR symptoms into several different criteria may improve diagnosis. RDCC symptom clusters are both research data-based and amenable to further research for validation.

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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
67
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official Journal of the American Neuropsychiatric Association, the premier North American organization of clinicians, scientists, and educators specializing in behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, and the clinical neurosciences, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (JNCN) aims to publish works that advance the science of brain-behavior relationships, the care of persons and families affected by neurodevelopmental, acquired neurological, and neurodegenerative conditions, and education and training in behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry. JNCN publishes peer-reviewed articles on the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of neurological conditions, the structural and functional neuroanatomy of idiopathic psychiatric disorders, and the clinical and educational applications and public health implications of scientific advances in these areas. The Journal features systematic reviews and meta-analyses, narrative reviews, original research articles, scholarly considerations of treatment and educational challenges in behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry, analyses and commentaries on advances and emerging trends in the field, international perspectives on neuropsychiatry, opinions and introspections, case reports that inform on the structural and functional bases of neuropsychiatric conditions, and classic pieces from the field’s rich history.
×
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