癫痫和精神性非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的隐喻语言:是时候向前迈进了

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Epilepsy and Behavior Reports Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639
Lina Urh , Daniele Piscitelli , Massimiliano Beghi , Silvia Diotti , Giuseppe Erba , Adriana Magaudda , Mikhail Zinchuk , Alla Guekht , Cesare Maria Cornaggia
{"title":"癫痫和精神性非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的隐喻语言:是时候向前迈进了","authors":"Lina Urh ,&nbsp;Daniele Piscitelli ,&nbsp;Massimiliano Beghi ,&nbsp;Silvia Diotti ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Erba ,&nbsp;Adriana Magaudda ,&nbsp;Mikhail Zinchuk ,&nbsp;Alla Guekht ,&nbsp;Cesare Maria Cornaggia","doi":"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36558,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100639"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward\",\"authors\":\"Lina Urh ,&nbsp;Daniele Piscitelli ,&nbsp;Massimiliano Beghi ,&nbsp;Silvia Diotti ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Erba ,&nbsp;Adriana Magaudda ,&nbsp;Mikhail Zinchuk ,&nbsp;Alla Guekht ,&nbsp;Cesare Maria Cornaggia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ebr.2023.100639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ<sup>2</sup> (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100639\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576/pdfft?md5=411a649fa7d199bc1a8d75b113ac942d&pid=1-s2.0-S2589986423000576-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsy and Behavior Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589986423000576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

隐喻语言(ML)的会话分析(CA)已被提议作为癫痫(ES)和精神性非癫痫发作(PNES)的鉴别诊断工具。然而,隐喻概念化的临床意义尚未得到明确界定。本研究旨在调查多国样本中 ES 和 PNES 患者使用的 ML。两名盲人研究人员检查了 54 位 ES 和 PNES 患者(意大利,29 人;美国,11 人;俄罗斯,14 人)的访谈记录和视频,确定了代表患者内心体验的患者与癫痫发作的关系。诊断以视频脑电图为依据。隐喻分为 "空间/地点"、"外力"、"自愿行为 "和 "其他"。共识别出 175 个隐喻。在隐喻出现方面,ES 和 PNES 患者之间未发现差异(χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74)。在比较 ES 患者和 PNES 患者使用的隐喻类型时,未发现差异。PNES 患者和 ES 患者在 ML 的出现率和类别方面并无差异。因此,研究人员和临床医生在使用隐喻概念进行诊断时应慎重考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Metaphoric language in the differential diagnosis of epilepsy and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Time to move forward

Conversation analysis (CA) to identify metaphoric language (ML) has been proposed as a tool for the differential diagnosis of epileptic (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). However, the clinical relevance of metaphoric conceptualizations is not clearly defined. The current study aims to investigate the ML utilized by individuals with ES and PNES in a pulled multi-country sample. Two blinded researchers examined the transcripts and videos of 54 interviews of individuals (n = 29, Italy; n = 11, USA; n = 14, Russia) with ES and PNES, identifying the patient-seizure relationship representative of the patient's internal experience. The diagnoses were based on video-EEG. Metaphors were classified as “Space/place”, “External force”, “Voluntary action”, and “Other”. A total of 175 metaphors were identified. No differences between individuals with ES and PNES were found in metaphoric occurrence (χ2 (1, N = 54) = 0.07; p = 0.74). No differences were identified when comparing the types of metaphors utilized by participants with ES and those with PNES. Patients with PNES and ES did not demonstrate differences in terms of occurrence and categories in ML. Therefore, researchers and clinicians should carefully consider the use of metaphor conceptualizations for diagnostic purposes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epilepsy and Behavior Reports
Epilepsy and Behavior Reports Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
54
审稿时长
50 days
期刊最新文献
Ultrahigh-field imaging (7 Tesla) in DNET: Unmasking microstructural imaging characteristics – A case report Myoclonic status epilepticus with dystonia-like symptoms in patients with dementia: Report of two cases Painful Todd’s: Post-ictal painful hemiparesis as an identifier of insular epilepsy Antiseizure medications and their differing effects on cardiovascular risk Usefulness of perampanel as initial monotherapy in children with non-lesional focal epilepsy
×
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