BACKGROUND: The PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) is one of the most important rating instruments for patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, there is a long and ongoing debate in the psychiatric community regarding its mathematical properties.All 30 items range from 1 to 7 leading to a minimum total score of 30, implying that the PANSS is an interval scale. For such interval scales straightforward calculation of relative changes is not appropriate. To calculate outcome criteria based on a percent change as, e.g., the widely accepted response criterion, the scale has to be transformed into a ratio scale beforehand. Recent publications have already pointed out the pitfall that ignoring the scale level (interval vs. ratio scale) leads to a set of mathematical problems, potentially resulting in erroneous results concerning the efficacy of the treatment. METHODS: A Pubmed search based on the PRISMA statement of the highest-ranked psychiatric journals (search terms "PANSS" and "response") was carried out. All articles containing percent changes were included and methods of percent change calculation were analysed. RESULTS: This systematic literature research shows that the majority of authors (62%) actually appear to use incorrect calculations. In most instances the method of calculation was not described in the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: These alarming results underline the need for standardized procedures for PANSS calculations.
BACKGROUND: The PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) is one of the most important rating instruments for patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, there is a long and ongoing debate in the psychiatric community regarding its mathematical properties.All 30 items range from 1 to 7 leading to a minimum total score of 30, implying that the PANSS is an interval scale. For such interval scales straightforward calculation of relative changes is not appropriate. To calculate outcome criteria based on a percent change as, e.g., the widely accepted response criterion, the scale has to be transformed into a ratio scale beforehand. Recent publications have already pointed out the pitfall that ignoring the scale level (interval vs. ratio scale) leads to a set of mathematical problems, potentially resulting in erroneous results concerning the efficacy of the treatment. METHODS: A Pubmed search based on the PRISMA statement of the highest-ranked psychiatric journals (search terms "PANSS" and "response") was carried out. All articles containing percent changes were included and methods of percent change calculation were analysed. RESULTS: This systematic literature research shows that the majority of authors (62%) actually appear to use incorrect calculations. In most instances the method of calculation was not described in the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: These alarming results underline the need for standardized procedures for PANSS calculations.
Authors: Jean-Pierre Lindenmayer; Pal Czobor; Jan Volavka; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Leslie Citrome; Brian Sheitman; Miranda Chakos; Joseph P McEvoy Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robin A Emsley; Mimi C Roberts; Solomon Rataemane; Janus Pretorius; Piet P Oosthuizen; Jadri Turner; Dana J H Niehaus; Natasha Keyter; Dan J Stein Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Alan Breier; Karena Meehan; Martin Birkett; Stacy David; Iris Ferchland; Virginia Sutton; Cindy C Taylor; Rebecca Palmer; Martin Dossenbach; Geri Kiesler; Shlomo Brook; Padraig Wright Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2002-05
Authors: W Wolfgang Fleischhacker; Mariëlle Eerdekens; Keith Karcher; Gary Remington; Pierre-Michel Llorca; Wlodzimierz Chrzanowski; Stephen Martin; Ola Gefvert Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Harold W Koenigsberg; Diedre Reynolds; Marianne Goodman; Antonia S New; Vivian Mitropoulou; Robert L Trestman; Jeremy Silverman; Larry J Siever Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Ariana E Anderson; Stephen Marder; Steven P Reise; Adam Savitz; Giacomo Salvadore; Dong Jing Fu; Qingqin Li; Ibrahim Turkoz; Carol Han; Robert M Bilder Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Theo G M van Erp; Adrian Preda; Dana Nguyen; Lawrence Faziola; Jessica Turner; Juan Bustillo; Aysenil Belger; Kelvin O Lim; Sarah McEwen; James Voyvodic; Daniel H Mathalon; Judith Ford; Steven G Potkin Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ina Giegling; Beatrice Balzarro; Stefano Porcelli; Martin Schäfer; Annette M Hartmann; Marion Friedl; Bettina Konte; Philipp Krämer; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Diana De Ronchi; Hans H Stassen; Alessandro Serretti; Dan Rujescu Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Oliver D Howes; Rob McCutcheon; Ofer Agid; Andrea de Bartolomeis; Nico J M van Beveren; Michael L Birnbaum; Michael A P Bloomfield; Rodrigo A Bressan; Robert W Buchanan; William T Carpenter; David J Castle; Leslie Citrome; Zafiris J Daskalakis; Michael Davidson; Richard J Drake; Serdar Dursun; Bjørn H Ebdrup; Helio Elkis; Peter Falkai; W Wolfgang Fleischacker; Ary Gadelha; Fiona Gaughran; Birte Y Glenthøj; Ariel Graff-Guerrero; Jaime E C Hallak; William G Honer; James Kennedy; Bruce J Kinon; Stephen M Lawrie; Jimmy Lee; F Markus Leweke; James H MacCabe; Carolyn B McNabb; Herbert Meltzer; Hans-Jürgen Möller; Shinchiro Nakajima; Christos Pantelis; Tiago Reis Marques; Gary Remington; Susan L Rossell; Bruce R Russell; Cynthia O Siu; Takefumi Suzuki; Iris E Sommer; David Taylor; Neil Thomas; Alp Üçok; Daniel Umbricht; James T R Walters; John Kane; Christoph U Correll Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 18.112