Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD): an empirical benchmark study of real-world diagnostic accuracy and reliability among leading international psychiatrists

Bar Urkin, J. Parnas, Andrea Raballo, Danny Koren
{"title":"Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD): an empirical benchmark study of real-world diagnostic accuracy and reliability among leading international psychiatrists","authors":"Bar Urkin, J. Parnas, Andrea Raballo, Danny Koren","doi":"10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Assigning a psychiatric diagnosis in real-world situations is often difficult, given that the clinical presentation does not usually conform to the list of condensed, simplified behavioral descriptors of mainstream operational taxonomies (MOT) (e.g. ICD-11 and DSM-5). The goal of this study was to benchmark diagnostic accuracy and reliability on a central and severe spectrum of psychopathology (i.e., the schizophrenia spectrum disorders [SSD]), adopting a pragmatic approach as close as possible to real-world clinical settings.\n \n \n \n We examined the diagnostic performance of 30 international psychiatrists expert in SSD. The clinicians were asked to make their clinical best diagnostic estimate for two written clinical vignettes excerpted from real-world SSD cases.\n \n \n \n In the first vignette, 22 out of the 30 clinicians (73.5%) indicated a schizophrenia spectrum disorder as their main diagnostic hypothesis. In the second vignette, 12 clinicians (40%) chose SSD as their main diagnostic hypothesis. Only 10 of the 30 clinicians (33%) correctly identified both vignettes as cases of SSD. The level of inter-rater diagnostic agreement (Fleiss’ Kappa) was but statistically significant (KFleiss = 0.08, p = 0.01).\n \n \n \n The results suggest that, even in a sample of influential international psychiatrists, the diagnostic accuracy and reliability on SSD presentations is poor and substantially inferior to those obtained in reliability studies using structured or semi-structured interviews. The widespread adoption of MOT systems in the last decades may have inadvertently eroded ability of clinicians to detect a typical pattern of psychiatric illnesses.\n","PeriodicalId":21348,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Bulletin Open","volume":"81 S1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Bulletin Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgae012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Assigning a psychiatric diagnosis in real-world situations is often difficult, given that the clinical presentation does not usually conform to the list of condensed, simplified behavioral descriptors of mainstream operational taxonomies (MOT) (e.g. ICD-11 and DSM-5). The goal of this study was to benchmark diagnostic accuracy and reliability on a central and severe spectrum of psychopathology (i.e., the schizophrenia spectrum disorders [SSD]), adopting a pragmatic approach as close as possible to real-world clinical settings. We examined the diagnostic performance of 30 international psychiatrists expert in SSD. The clinicians were asked to make their clinical best diagnostic estimate for two written clinical vignettes excerpted from real-world SSD cases. In the first vignette, 22 out of the 30 clinicians (73.5%) indicated a schizophrenia spectrum disorder as their main diagnostic hypothesis. In the second vignette, 12 clinicians (40%) chose SSD as their main diagnostic hypothesis. Only 10 of the 30 clinicians (33%) correctly identified both vignettes as cases of SSD. The level of inter-rater diagnostic agreement (Fleiss’ Kappa) was but statistically significant (KFleiss = 0.08, p = 0.01). The results suggest that, even in a sample of influential international psychiatrists, the diagnostic accuracy and reliability on SSD presentations is poor and substantially inferior to those obtained in reliability studies using structured or semi-structured interviews. The widespread adoption of MOT systems in the last decades may have inadvertently eroded ability of clinicians to detect a typical pattern of psychiatric illnesses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神分裂症谱系障碍(SSD):国际顶尖精神病学家对现实世界诊断准确性和可靠性的实证基准研究
鉴于临床表现通常并不符合主流操作分类法(MOT)(如 ICD-11 和 DSM-5)中浓缩、简化的行为描述列表,因此在现实世界中进行精神病诊断往往十分困难。本研究的目的是采用一种尽可能贴近现实世界临床环境的实用方法,对精神病理学的核心和严重谱系(即精神分裂症谱系障碍 [SSD])的诊断准确性和可靠性进行基准测试。 我们考察了 30 位国际精神科专家在 SSD 方面的诊断表现。我们要求临床医生对摘录自真实世界 SSD 病例的两个书面临床小故事做出临床最佳诊断估计。 在第一个案例中,30 位临床医生中有 22 位(73.5%)将精神分裂症谱系障碍作为主要诊断假设。在第二个小故事中,12 名临床医生(40%)选择了 SSD 作为他们的主要诊断假说。在 30 位临床医生中,只有 10 位(33%)正确地将两个小故事都确定为 SSD 病例。评分者之间的诊断一致性(Fleiss' Kappa)在统计学上有显著意义(KFleiss = 0.08,P = 0.01)。 结果表明,即使是在有影响力的国际精神科医生样本中,对 SSD 表现的诊断准确性和可靠性也很差,大大低于使用结构化或半结构化访谈进行的可靠性研究。过去几十年来,MOT系统的广泛采用可能无意中削弱了临床医生发现典型精神病模式的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kenya Psychosis-Risk Outcomes Study (KePROS): Development of an Accelerated Medicine Partnership Schizophrenia (AMP SCZ)-Aligned Project in Africa Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD): an empirical benchmark study of real-world diagnostic accuracy and reliability among leading international psychiatrists Predictors of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Medication Use in Patients with Schizophrenia Spectrum, Bipolar, and Other Psychotic Disorders in a United States Community-based, Integrated Health System Childhood Anxiety Symptoms as a Predictor of Psychotic Experiences in Adolescence in a High-Risk Cohort for Psychiatric Disorders Add-on Sodium Benzoate and N-Acetylcysteine in patients with early schizophrenia spectrum disorder: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo controlled feasibility trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1