多重化学敏感性综合征的多中心研究

D. Kutsogiannis, Ann L. Davidoff
{"title":"多重化学敏感性综合征的多中心研究","authors":"D. Kutsogiannis, Ann L. Davidoff","doi":"10.1080/00039890109604443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The lack of widely accepted, standardized, clinical and epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome has led to confusion about the identification of the condition and has slowed pertinent research. In this article, the authors evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 sets of clinical/epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome. In this cross-sectional survey of 1,166 patients who visited outpatient occupational, otolaryngology, allergy, and clinical ecological clinics, the authors used the aforementioned sets of criteria to (a) estimate the prevalence of the syndrome in these varied samples and (b) compare the current diagnostic practices of traditional physician specialists with those of clinical ecologists. The authors used a patient-completed questionnaire to assess the medical, psychosocial, and psychological status of patients who reported multiple chemical sensitivities. This approach enabled the formulation of 6 domains, which represented commonly observed characteristics of the syndrome. The authors used a physician-completed questionnaire to collect diagnoses of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome and other medical conditions. Domains, which were operationalized by the questionnaire and comprised the 2 sets of criteria for identification of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, had test-retest reliabilities that exceeded .75 and estimates of internal consistency that ranged between .59 and .94. Evidence of construct and face validity was considered acceptable. The overall clinic-based prevalences of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, based on 6 and 4 domains, were 7% and 23%, respectively. Regardless of the identifying set of criteria used, physicians' diagnoses had relatively low sensitivities (range = 6–50%) and relatively high specificities (range = 82–99%). The study data suggested that the domains operationalized by the questionnaire had reasonable psychometric characteristics. Study data also support the fact that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome is often overlooked–even by those physicians who treat it most frequently–and that use of both sets of objective criteria for identifying the syndrome would greatly improve the sensitivity of physician diagnoses.","PeriodicalId":8276,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal","volume":"81 1","pages":"196 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Multiple Center Study of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome\",\"authors\":\"D. Kutsogiannis, Ann L. Davidoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00039890109604443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The lack of widely accepted, standardized, clinical and epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome has led to confusion about the identification of the condition and has slowed pertinent research. In this article, the authors evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 sets of clinical/epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome. In this cross-sectional survey of 1,166 patients who visited outpatient occupational, otolaryngology, allergy, and clinical ecological clinics, the authors used the aforementioned sets of criteria to (a) estimate the prevalence of the syndrome in these varied samples and (b) compare the current diagnostic practices of traditional physician specialists with those of clinical ecologists. The authors used a patient-completed questionnaire to assess the medical, psychosocial, and psychological status of patients who reported multiple chemical sensitivities. This approach enabled the formulation of 6 domains, which represented commonly observed characteristics of the syndrome. The authors used a physician-completed questionnaire to collect diagnoses of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome and other medical conditions. Domains, which were operationalized by the questionnaire and comprised the 2 sets of criteria for identification of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, had test-retest reliabilities that exceeded .75 and estimates of internal consistency that ranged between .59 and .94. Evidence of construct and face validity was considered acceptable. The overall clinic-based prevalences of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, based on 6 and 4 domains, were 7% and 23%, respectively. Regardless of the identifying set of criteria used, physicians' diagnoses had relatively low sensitivities (range = 6–50%) and relatively high specificities (range = 82–99%). The study data suggested that the domains operationalized by the questionnaire had reasonable psychometric characteristics. Study data also support the fact that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome is often overlooked–even by those physicians who treat it most frequently–and that use of both sets of objective criteria for identifying the syndrome would greatly improve the sensitivity of physician diagnoses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"196 - 207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00039890109604443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00039890109604443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

由于缺乏广泛接受的、标准化的、临床和流行病学的多重化学敏感综合征标准,导致了对该疾病的识别混乱,并减缓了相关的研究。在本文中,作者评估了2套临床/流行病学标准的多重化学敏感性综合征的心理测量特性。在这项横断面调查中,作者对1166名门诊职业、耳鼻喉科、过敏和临床生态诊所的患者进行了调查,作者使用了上述标准集来(a)估计这些不同样本中综合征的患病率,(b)比较传统内科专家和临床生态学家目前的诊断实践。作者使用患者填写的问卷来评估报告多种化学物质敏感的患者的医学、社会心理和心理状况。这种方法能够形成6个域,它们代表了该综合征的常见特征。作者使用了一份由医生填写的问卷来收集多种化学物质敏感综合征和其他医疗状况的诊断结果。由问卷操作的域,包括鉴定多重化学敏感性综合征的两套标准,其重测信度超过0.75,内部一致性估计在0.59至0.94之间。构念和面部效度的证据被认为是可接受的。基于6个和4个域的多重化学敏感性综合征的总体临床患病率分别为7%和23%。无论使用何种识别标准,医生的诊断具有相对较低的敏感性(范围= 6-50%)和相对较高的特异性(范围= 82-99%)。研究数据表明,问卷所操作的领域具有合理的心理测量特征。研究数据也支持这样一个事实,即多种化学物质敏感综合征经常被忽视——甚至被那些最常治疗这种疾病的医生所忽视——使用两套客观标准来识别这种综合征将极大地提高医生诊断的敏感性。
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
A Multiple Center Study of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome
Abstract The lack of widely accepted, standardized, clinical and epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome has led to confusion about the identification of the condition and has slowed pertinent research. In this article, the authors evaluated the psychometric properties of 2 sets of clinical/epidemiologic criteria for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome. In this cross-sectional survey of 1,166 patients who visited outpatient occupational, otolaryngology, allergy, and clinical ecological clinics, the authors used the aforementioned sets of criteria to (a) estimate the prevalence of the syndrome in these varied samples and (b) compare the current diagnostic practices of traditional physician specialists with those of clinical ecologists. The authors used a patient-completed questionnaire to assess the medical, psychosocial, and psychological status of patients who reported multiple chemical sensitivities. This approach enabled the formulation of 6 domains, which represented commonly observed characteristics of the syndrome. The authors used a physician-completed questionnaire to collect diagnoses of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome and other medical conditions. Domains, which were operationalized by the questionnaire and comprised the 2 sets of criteria for identification of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, had test-retest reliabilities that exceeded .75 and estimates of internal consistency that ranged between .59 and .94. Evidence of construct and face validity was considered acceptable. The overall clinic-based prevalences of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, based on 6 and 4 domains, were 7% and 23%, respectively. Regardless of the identifying set of criteria used, physicians' diagnoses had relatively low sensitivities (range = 6–50%) and relatively high specificities (range = 82–99%). The study data suggested that the domains operationalized by the questionnaire had reasonable psychometric characteristics. Study data also support the fact that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome is often overlooked–even by those physicians who treat it most frequently–and that use of both sets of objective criteria for identifying the syndrome would greatly improve the sensitivity of physician diagnoses.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Index to Volume 59 Mold Conference Objectives and Summary Diisocyanates and Nonoccupational Disease: A Review Index to volume 57 The Archives—a New Beginning Every Month
×
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