Comparison of Research Diagnostic Systems in an Edinburgh Community Sample

Author:

Dean C.,Surtees P. G.,Sashidharan S. P.

Abstract

SummaryFour research diagnostic schemes are compared in one community sample. The prevalence of psychiatric disorder ranged from 8.7 per cent (ID-Catego, threshold and definite) through 13.7 per cent (RDC, probable and definite) to 20.3 per cent (Bedford, borderline and definite). The main comparison made is between the PSE/ID/Catego and SADS/RDC systems. Sixty-one per cent of cases are identified as such by both these schemes. There is poor agreement about labelling; only 56 per cent of cases of depression and 16.7 per cent of cases of anxiety are so diagnosed by both systems. A post hoc check list was used to identify Bedford cases; all bar one were found to fulfil RDC and PSE case criteria. The results are compared with those from other centres which have used the same diagnostic criteria in community studies.

Publisher

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

Cited by 216 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3