Jo Ellen Wilson1, Kathy Niu2, Stephen E Nicolson3, Stephen Z Levine4, Stephan Heckers5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: jo.e.wilson@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: kathyniu@gmail.com. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: steve.nicolson@vanderbilt.edu. 4. Department of Community Mental Health, University of Haifa, Israel. Electronic address: stezlev@gmail.com. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: stephan.heckers@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The classification of catatonia has fluctuated and underwent recent changes in DSM-5. The current study examines the prevalence of catatonia signs, estimates the utility of diagnostic features, identifies core catatonia signs, and explores their underlying structure. METHOD: We screened 339 acutely ill medical and psychiatric patients with the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS). We examined prevalence and severity of catatonia signs and compared BFCRS, DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnoses. We used principal component analysis (PCA) to examine the factorial validity of catatonia and item response theory (IRT) to estimate each sign's utility and reliability. RESULTS: Out of the 339 patients, 300 were diagnosed with catatonia using the BFCRS and 232 catatonia diagnoses were validated by the treating provider based on selection for treatment with benzodiazepines or electroconvulsive therapy. Of the 232 validated catatonia cases, 211 (91%) met DSM-IV criteria but only 170 (73%) met DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. Staring was the most prevalent catatonia sign. PCA identified three components, interpretable as "Increased, Abnormal and Decreased Psychomotor Activity," although 63% of the variance was unexplained. IRT showed that Excitement, Waxy Flexibility and Immobility/Stupor were the best indicators of each factor. The BFCRS had many redundant items and as a whole had low reliability at low severity of catatonia, but good reliability at moderate-high severity of catatonia. CONCLUSIONS: The structure of catatonia remains to be discovered. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: The classification of catatonia has fluctuated and underwent recent changes in DSM-5. The current study examines the prevalence of catatonia signs, estimates the utility of diagnostic features, identifies core catatonia signs, and explores their underlying structure. METHOD: We screened 339 acutely ill medical and psychiatricpatients with the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS). We examined prevalence and severity of catatonia signs and compared BFCRS, DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnoses. We used principal component analysis (PCA) to examine the factorial validity of catatonia and item response theory (IRT) to estimate each sign's utility and reliability. RESULTS: Out of the 339 patients, 300 were diagnosed with catatonia using the BFCRS and 232 catatonia diagnoses were validated by the treating provider based on selection for treatment with benzodiazepines or electroconvulsive therapy. Of the 232 validated catatonia cases, 211 (91%) met DSM-IV criteria but only 170 (73%) met DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. Staring was the most prevalent catatonia sign. PCA identified three components, interpretable as "Increased, Abnormal and Decreased Psychomotor Activity," although 63% of the variance was unexplained. IRT showed that Excitement, Waxy Flexibility and Immobility/Stupor were the best indicators of each factor. The BFCRS had many redundant items and as a whole had low reliability at low severity of catatonia, but good reliability at moderate-high severity of catatonia. CONCLUSIONS: The structure of catatonia remains to be discovered. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Dusan Hirjak; Mahmoud Rashidi; Katharina M Kubera; Georg Northoff; Stefan Fritze; Mike M Schmitgen; Fabio Sambataro; Vince D Calhoun; Robert C Wolf Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-01-04 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Sebastian Walther; Katharina Stegmayer; Andrea Federspiel; Stephan Bohlhalter; Roland Wiest; Petra V Viher Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Jo E Wilson; Richard Carlson; Maria C Duggan; Pratik Pandharipande; Timothy D Girard; Li Wang; Jennifer L Thompson; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Andrew Francis; Stephen E Nicolson; Robert S Dittus; Stephan Heckers; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Dusan Hirjak; Katharina M Kubera; Georg Northoff; Stefan Fritze; Alina L Bertolino; Cristina E Topor; Mike M Schmitgen; Robert C Wolf Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 9.306