儿童强迫症简要评估工具:系统综述。

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1542/peds.2024-068993
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Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC, and for unpublished studies with reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov through May 15, 2024.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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:怀疑患有强迫症(OCD)的儿童和青少年。目的:评价几种简易诊断评估工具的比较性能。数据来源:PubMed, Cochrane临床试验注册,Cochrane系统评价数据库,Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO和ERIC,以及截至2024年5月15日在ClinicalTrials.gov上报告结果的未发表研究。研究选择:对临床怀疑有强迫症的儿童(21岁以下)进行研究,评估强迫症简短评估工具的准确性(预测效度),并与参考标准进行比较。数据提取/分析:我们提取了受试者特征、量表和参考标准信息、结果和偏倚风险评估。在可行的情况下,我们进行了随机效应诊断荟萃分析。我们评估了每个量表的证据强度。结果:有中等强度的证据表明,儿童行为检查表-强迫症子量表的8个问题版本足够敏感和具体(曲线下的汇总面积为0.84,95% CI为0.74至0.91),可以提示专家转诊进行额外的诊断评估。其他工具可能表现得一样好,甚至更好,但目前的证据不足以证明对其表现的广泛结论是正确的。局限性:每个尺度的研究很少,病例对照研究和白人同质人群可能会妨碍工具性能的推广。结论:根据目前的证据,CBCL-OCS可能足够准确地表明哪些青少年应该进一步评估强迫症,但需要进一步的研究来确定8个问题的子量表可以作为一个独立的测量。现有的证据不足以用于其他简短的评估工具。
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
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.

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
Pediatrics
Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
791
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Addressing Inequities in Amblyopia Treatment Outcomes. Pediatrician Work Hours: 2013-2022. An Open-Source Smartphone Otoacoustic Emissions Test for Infants. 2025 Recommendations for Preventive Pediatric Health Care: Policy Statement. Confirmed Systemic Mastocytosis in a Pediatric Patient With Widespread Cutaneous Symptoms.
×
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