Literature DB >> 21392943

The validity of self-rated psychotic symptoms in depressed inpatients.

F Seemüller1, M Riedel, M Obermeier, R Schennach-Wolff, I Spellmann, S Meyer, M Bauer, M Adli, K Kronmüller, M Ising, P Brieger, G Laux, W Bender, I Heuser, J Zeiler, W Gaebel, H-J Möller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-ratings of psychotic experiences might be biased by depressive symptoms.
METHOD: Data from a large naturalistic multicentre trial on depressed inpatients (n=488) who were assessed on a biweekly basis until discharge were analyzed. Self-rated psychotic symptoms as assessed with the 90-Item Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) were correlated with the SCL-90 total score, the SCL-90 depression score, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 21 item (HAMD-21) total score, the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and the clinician-rated paranoid-hallucinatory score of the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) scale.
RESULTS: At discharge the SCL-90 psychosis score correlated highest with the SCL-90 depression score (0.78, P<0.001) and with the BDI total score (0.64, P<0.001). Moderate correlations were found for the MADRS (0.34, P<0.001), HAMD (0.37, P<0.001) and AMDP depression score (0.33, P<0.001). Only a weak correlation was found between the SCL-90 psychosis score and the AMDP paranoid-hallucinatory syndrome score (0.15, P<0.001). Linear regression showed that change in self-rated psychotic symptoms over the treatment course was best explained by a change in the SCL-90 depression score (P<0.001). The change in clinician-rated AMDP paranoid-hallucinatory score had lesser influence (P=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: In depressed patients self-rated psychotic symptoms correlate poorly with clinician-rated psychotic symptoms. Caution is warranted when interpreting results from epidemiological surveys using self-rated psychotic symptom questionnaires as indicators of psychotic symptoms. Depressive symptoms which are highly prevalent in the general population might influence such self-ratings.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21392943     DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Psychiatry        ISSN: 0924-9338            Impact factor:   5.361


  4 in total

1.  DSM-5 reviewed from different angles: goal attainment, rationality, use of evidence, consequences--part 1: general aspects and paradigmatic discussion of depressive disorders.

Authors:  Hans-Jürgen Möller; Borwin Bandelow; Michael Bauer; Harald Hampel; Sabine C Herpertz; Michael Soyka; Utako B Barnikol; Simone Lista; Emanuel Severus; Wolfgang Maier
Journal:  Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 5.270

Review 2.  Rating scales measuring the severity of psychotic depression.

Authors:  S D Østergaard; A J Rothschild; A J Flint; B H Mulsant; E M Whyte; A K Leadholm; P Bech; B S Meyers
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 6.392

3.  Psychotic and schizotypal symptoms in non-psychotic patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Authors:  Stian Solem; Kristen Hagen; Christoffer Wenaas; Åshild T Håland; Gunvor Launes; Patrick A Vogel; Bjarne Hansen; Joseph A Himle
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.630

Review 4.  Comprehensive Psychopathological Assessment Based on the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP) System: Development, Methodological Foundation, Application in Clinical Routine, and Research.

Authors:  Rolf-Dieter Stieglitz; Achim Haug; Erdmann Fähndrich; Michael Rösler; Wolfgang Trabert
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.157

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.