Gaelen P Adam, Eduardo L Caputo, Ghid Kanaan, Jennifer B Freeman, Elizabeth H Brannan, Ethan M Balk, Thomas A Trikalinos, Dale W Steele
{"title":"儿童强迫症简要评估工具:系统综述。","authors":"Gaelen P Adam, Eduardo L Caputo, Ghid Kanaan, Jennifer B Freeman, Elizabeth H Brannan, Ethan M Balk, Thomas A Trikalinos, Dale W Steele","doi":"10.1542/peds.2024-068993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Children and adolescents with suspected obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the comparative performance of brief diagnostic assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC, and for unpublished studies with reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov through May 15, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies of children (up to age 21) with a clinical suspicion of OCD that evaluated the accuracy (predictive validity) of brief assessment tools for OCD, compared to a reference standard.</p><p><strong>Data extraction/analysis: </strong>We extracted participant characteristics, scale and reference standard information, results, and risk of bias assessment. We performed random-effects diagnostic meta-analysis where feasible. We assessed strength of evidence for each scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is moderate strength of evidence that the 8-question version of the Child Behavior Checklist-Obsessive Compulsive subscale is sufficiently sensitive and specific (summary area under the curve of 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) to prompt specialist referral for additional diagnostic assessment. Other tools may perform as well or better, but the current evidence is insufficient to justify broad conclusions about their performance.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Few studies per scale, case-control studies, and homogenous White populations may preclude generalizability of tool performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the current evidence the CBCL-OCS probably is sufficiently accurate to indicate which youth should be further evaluated for OCD, but further research is needed to establish that the 8-question subscale can function as a stand-alone measure. The available evidence is insufficient for other brief assessment tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":20028,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief Assessment Tools for Obsessive Compulsive Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Gaelen P Adam, Eduardo L Caputo, Ghid Kanaan, Jennifer B Freeman, Elizabeth H Brannan, Ethan M Balk, Thomas A Trikalinos, Dale W Steele\",\"doi\":\"10.1542/peds.2024-068993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Children and adolescents with suspected obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the comparative performance of brief diagnostic assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC, and for unpublished studies with reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov through May 15, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies of children (up to age 21) with a clinical suspicion of OCD that evaluated the accuracy (predictive validity) of brief assessment tools for OCD, compared to a reference standard.</p><p><strong>Data extraction/analysis: </strong>We extracted participant characteristics, scale and reference standard information, results, and risk of bias assessment. We performed random-effects diagnostic meta-analysis where feasible. We assessed strength of evidence for each scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is moderate strength of evidence that the 8-question version of the Child Behavior Checklist-Obsessive Compulsive subscale is sufficiently sensitive and specific (summary area under the curve of 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) to prompt specialist referral for additional diagnostic assessment. Other tools may perform as well or better, but the current evidence is insufficient to justify broad conclusions about their performance.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Few studies per scale, case-control studies, and homogenous White populations may preclude generalizability of tool performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the current evidence the CBCL-OCS probably is sufficiently accurate to indicate which youth should be further evaluated for OCD, but further research is needed to establish that the 8-question subscale can function as a stand-alone measure. The available evidence is insufficient for other brief assessment tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-068993\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-068993","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Brief Assessment Tools for Obsessive Compulsive Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review.
Context: Children and adolescents with suspected obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
Objective: To estimate the comparative performance of brief diagnostic assessment tools.
Data sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC, and for unpublished studies with reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov through May 15, 2024.
Study selection: Studies of children (up to age 21) with a clinical suspicion of OCD that evaluated the accuracy (predictive validity) of brief assessment tools for OCD, compared to a reference standard.
Data extraction/analysis: We extracted participant characteristics, scale and reference standard information, results, and risk of bias assessment. We performed random-effects diagnostic meta-analysis where feasible. We assessed strength of evidence for each scale.
Results: There is moderate strength of evidence that the 8-question version of the Child Behavior Checklist-Obsessive Compulsive subscale is sufficiently sensitive and specific (summary area under the curve of 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) to prompt specialist referral for additional diagnostic assessment. Other tools may perform as well or better, but the current evidence is insufficient to justify broad conclusions about their performance.
Limitations: Few studies per scale, case-control studies, and homogenous White populations may preclude generalizability of tool performance.
Conclusions: Based on the current evidence the CBCL-OCS probably is sufficiently accurate to indicate which youth should be further evaluated for OCD, but further research is needed to establish that the 8-question subscale can function as a stand-alone measure. The available evidence is insufficient for other brief assessment tools.
期刊介绍:
The Pediatrics® journal is the official flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is widely cited in the field of pediatric medicine and is recognized as the leading journal in the field.
The journal publishes original research and evidence-based articles, which provide authoritative information to help readers stay up-to-date with the latest developments in pediatric medicine. The content is peer-reviewed and undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure its quality and reliability.
Pediatrics also serves as a valuable resource for conducting new research studies and supporting education and training activities in the field of pediatrics. It aims to enhance the quality of pediatric outpatient and inpatient care by disseminating valuable knowledge and insights.
As of 2023, Pediatrics has an impressive Journal Impact Factor (IF) Score of 8.0. The IF is a measure of a journal's influence and importance in the scientific community, with higher scores indicating a greater impact. This score reflects the significance and reach of the research published in Pediatrics, further establishing its prominence in the field of pediatric medicine.