评估两种新工具与双相情感障碍常规筛查工具的诊断性能:一项荟萃分析。

Mehdi Sayyah, Ali Delirrooyfard, Fakher Rahim
{"title":"评估两种新工具与双相情感障碍常规筛查工具的诊断性能:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Mehdi Sayyah, Ali Delirrooyfard, Fakher Rahim","doi":"10.1590/1516-4446-2021-2334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present meta-analysis was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the bipolarity index (BI) and Rapid Mode Screener (RMS) as compared with the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32), and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) in people with bipolar disorder (BD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched five databases using standard search terms, and relevant articles published between May 1990 and November 30, 2021 were collected and reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-three original studies were included (n=62,291). At the recommended cutoffs for the BI, HCL-32, BSDS, MDQ, and RMS, the pooled sensitivities were 0.82, 0.75, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.78, respectively, while the corresponding pooled specificities were 0.73, 0.63, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively. However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the BI was superior to that of the other tests, with a relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 1.22 (0.98-1.52, p < 0.0001). The RMS was significantly more accurate than the other tests, with an RDOR (95%CI) of 0.79 (0.67-0.92, p < 0.0001) for the detection of BD type I (BD-I). However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the MDQ was superior to that of the other tests, with an RDOR of 1.93 (0.89-2.79, p = 0.0019), for the detection of BD type II (BD-II).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric properties of two new instruments, the BI and RMS, in people with BD were consistent with considerably higher diagnostic accuracy than the HCL-32, BSDS, and MDQ. However, a positive screening should be confirmed by a clinical diagnostic evaluation for BD.</p>","PeriodicalId":9246,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9169473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the diagnostic performance of two new tools versus routine screening instruments for bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Sayyah, Ali Delirrooyfard, Fakher Rahim\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1516-4446-2021-2334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present meta-analysis was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the bipolarity index (BI) and Rapid Mode Screener (RMS) as compared with the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32), and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) in people with bipolar disorder (BD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched five databases using standard search terms, and relevant articles published between May 1990 and November 30, 2021 were collected and reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-three original studies were included (n=62,291). At the recommended cutoffs for the BI, HCL-32, BSDS, MDQ, and RMS, the pooled sensitivities were 0.82, 0.75, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.78, respectively, while the corresponding pooled specificities were 0.73, 0.63, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively. However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the BI was superior to that of the other tests, with a relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 1.22 (0.98-1.52, p < 0.0001). The RMS was significantly more accurate than the other tests, with an RDOR (95%CI) of 0.79 (0.67-0.92, p < 0.0001) for the detection of BD type I (BD-I). However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the MDQ was superior to that of the other tests, with an RDOR of 1.93 (0.89-2.79, p = 0.0019), for the detection of BD type II (BD-II).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The psychometric properties of two new instruments, the BI and RMS, in people with BD were consistent with considerably higher diagnostic accuracy than the HCL-32, BSDS, and MDQ. However, a positive screening should be confirmed by a clinical diagnostic evaluation for BD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9169473/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2021-2334\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2021-2334","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

研究目的本荟萃分析旨在确定双相情感障碍(BD)患者的双相情感指数(BI)和快速模式筛选器(RMS)与双相情感障碍诊断量表(BSDS)、躁狂症核对表(HCL-32)和情绪障碍问卷(MDQ)的诊断准确性:我们使用标准检索词对五个数据库进行了系统检索,收集并审查了 1990 年 5 月至 2021 年 11 月 30 日期间发表的相关文章:结果:共纳入 93 项原创研究(n=62,291)。在 BI、HCL-32、BSDS、MDQ 和 RMS 的推荐临界值下,汇总灵敏度分别为 0.82、0.75、0.71、0.71 和 0.78,而相应的汇总特异度分别为 0.73、0.63、0.73、0.77 和 0.72。不过,有证据表明 BI 的准确性优于其他检测方法,相对诊断几率比(RDOR)为 1.22(0.98-1.52,P <0.0001)。在检测 BD I 型(BD-I)方面,RMS 的准确性明显高于其他检测方法,相对诊断率(95%CI)为 0.79(0.67-0.92,p < 0.0001)。然而,有证据表明,在检测BD II型(BD-II)时,MDQ的准确性优于其他测试,RDOR为1.93(0.89-2.79,p = 0.0019):结论:BI 和 RMS 这两种新工具在 BD 患者中的心理测量特性与 HCL-32、BSDS 和 MDQ 的诊断准确性一致。然而,阳性筛查结果应通过 BD 临床诊断评估加以确认。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of the diagnostic performance of two new tools versus routine screening instruments for bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis.

Objective: The present meta-analysis was conducted to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the bipolarity index (BI) and Rapid Mode Screener (RMS) as compared with the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), the Hypomania Checklist (HCL-32), and the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) in people with bipolar disorder (BD).

Methods: We systematically searched five databases using standard search terms, and relevant articles published between May 1990 and November 30, 2021 were collected and reviewed.

Results: Ninety-three original studies were included (n=62,291). At the recommended cutoffs for the BI, HCL-32, BSDS, MDQ, and RMS, the pooled sensitivities were 0.82, 0.75, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.78, respectively, while the corresponding pooled specificities were 0.73, 0.63, 0.73, 0.77, and 0.72, respectively. However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the BI was superior to that of the other tests, with a relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 1.22 (0.98-1.52, p < 0.0001). The RMS was significantly more accurate than the other tests, with an RDOR (95%CI) of 0.79 (0.67-0.92, p < 0.0001) for the detection of BD type I (BD-I). However, there was evidence that the accuracy of the MDQ was superior to that of the other tests, with an RDOR of 1.93 (0.89-2.79, p = 0.0019), for the detection of BD type II (BD-II).

Conclusion: The psychometric properties of two new instruments, the BI and RMS, in people with BD were consistent with considerably higher diagnostic accuracy than the HCL-32, BSDS, and MDQ. However, a positive screening should be confirmed by a clinical diagnostic evaluation for BD.

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