Alan J Carson1, Jon Stone2, Christian Holm Hansen3, Rod Duncan4, Jonathon Cavanagh5, Keith Matthews6, G Murray7, Michael Sharpe8. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 2. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Department of Medical Statistics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 5. Department of IHW, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 6. Division of Neuroscience, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. 7. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Somatic symptoms unexplained by disease are common in all medical settings. The process of identifying such patients requires a clinical assessment often supported by clinical tests. Such assessments are time-consuming and expensive. Consequently the observation that such patients tend to report a greater number of symptom has led to the use of self-rated somatic symptom counts as a simpler and cheaper diagnostic aid and proxy measure for epidemiological surveys. However, despite their increasing popularity there is little evidence to support their validity. METHODS: We tested the score on a commonly used self-rated symptom questionnaire- the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 15) (plus enhanced iterations including an additional 10 items on specific neurological symptoms and an additional 5 items on mental state) for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against a medical assessment (with 18 months follow-up) in a prospective cohort study of 3781 newly attending patients at neurology clinics in Scotland, UK. RESULTS: We found 1144/3781 new outpatients had symptoms that were unexplained by disease. The patients with symptoms unexplained by disease reported higher symptoms count scores (PHQ 15: 5.6 (95% CI 5.4 to 5.8) vs 4.2 (4.1 to 4.4) p<0.0001). However, the PHQ15 performed little better than chance in its ability to identify patients with symptoms unexplained by disease. The findings with the enhanced scales were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated symptom count scores should not be used to identify patients with symptoms unexplained by disease. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: Somatic symptoms unexplained by disease are common in all medical settings. The process of identifying such patients requires a clinical assessment often supported by clinical tests. Such assessments are time-consuming and expensive. Consequently the observation that such patients tend to report a greater number of symptom has led to the use of self-rated somatic symptom counts as a simpler and cheaper diagnostic aid and proxy measure for epidemiological surveys. However, despite their increasing popularity there is little evidence to support their validity. METHODS: We tested the score on a commonly used self-rated symptom questionnaire- the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 15) (plus enhanced iterations including an additional 10 items on specific neurological symptoms and an additional 5 items on mental state) for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity against a medical assessment (with 18 months follow-up) in a prospective cohort study of 3781 newly attending patients at neurology clinics in Scotland, UK. RESULTS: We found 1144/3781 new outpatients had symptoms that were unexplained by disease. The patients with symptoms unexplained by disease reported higher symptoms count scores (PHQ 15: 5.6 (95% CI 5.4 to 5.8) vs 4.2 (4.1 to 4.4) p<0.0001). However, the PHQ15 performed little better than chance in its ability to identify patients with symptoms unexplained by disease. The findings with the enhanced scales were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated symptom count scores should not be used to identify patients with symptoms unexplained by disease. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: J M Gelauff; E M Kingma; J S Kalkman; R Bezemer; B G M van Engelen; J Stone; M A J Tijssen; J G M Rosmalen Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: David L Perez; Nassim Matin; Arthur Barsky; Victor Costumero-Ramos; Sara J Makaretz; Sigrid S Young; Jorge Sepulcre; W Curt LaFrance; Matcheri S Keshavan; Bradford C Dickerson Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Laura H Goldstein; Emily J Robinson; Izabela Pilecka; Iain Perdue; Iris Mosweu; Julie Read; Harriet Jordan; Matthew Wilkinson; Gregg Rawlings; Sarah J Feehan; Hannah Callaghan; Elana Day; James Purnell; Maria Baldellou Lopez; Alice Brockington; Christine Burness; Norman A Poole; Carole Eastwood; Michele Moore; John Dc Mellers; Jon Stone; Alan Carson; Nick Medford; Markus Reuber; Paul McCrone; Joanna Murray; Mark P Richardson; Sabine Landau; Trudie Chalder Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Laura H Goldstein; Emily J Robinson; John D C Mellers; Jon Stone; Alan Carson; Markus Reuber; Nick Medford; Paul McCrone; Joanna Murray; Mark P Richardson; Izabela Pilecka; Carole Eastwood; Michele Moore; Iris Mosweu; Iain Perdue; Sabine Landau; Trudie Chalder Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Glenn Nielsen; Jon Stone; Marta Buszewicz; Alan Carson; Laura H Goldstein; Kate Holt; Rachael Hunter; Jonathan Marsden; Louise Marston; Hayley Noble; Markus Reuber; Mark J Edwards Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Laura H Goldstein; Emily J Robinson; John D C Mellers; Jon Stone; Alan Carson; Trudie Chalder; Markus Reuber; Carole Eastwood; Sabine Landau; Paul McCrone; Michele Moore; Iris Mosweu; Joanna Murray; Iain Perdue; Izabela Pilecka; Mark P Richardson; Nick Medford Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 7.723