Ham-D不是汉密尔顿抑郁量表。

Q3 Medicine Psychopharmacology bulletin Pub Date : 2022-05-31
Leon I Rosenberg
{"title":"Ham-D不是汉密尔顿抑郁量表。","authors":"Leon I Rosenberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This article will demonstrate that the most widely used versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) used in randomized clinical trials, the Guy 1976 HAM-D<sup>1</sup> and the SIGH-D,<sup>2</sup> have response options that deviate sharply from Max Hamilton's 1960<sup>3</sup> and 1967<sup>4</sup> guidelines. For example, difficulty in concentration, one of the diagnostic criteria for a Major Depressive Episode according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1980, in editions III, IV, IV-TR and 5,<sup>5</sup> is something that Hamilton wrote should be measured in his scale, yet it is not measured in either of the presently used HAM-Ds.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A review was conducted of the four key papers related to the development of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: the 1960 and 1967 papers by Max Hamilton; the HAM-D chapter in the 1976 ECDEU <i>Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology</i> edited by William Guy; and the 1988 article on the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D (SIGH-D) by Janet Williams. Additionally, the Janet Williams updated 2013 SIGH-D<sup>6</sup> is also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When comparing the HAM-D and the SIGH-D with the gold standard Hamilton guidelines from his 1960 and 1967 articles, 13 of the 17 items contain significant errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant differences between the currently used HAM-Ds and the guidelines set forth by Max Hamilton in 1960 and 1967 will be demonstrated. These discrepancies may produce inconsistencies in administration and scoring, leading to unreliable measurements of subjects' and patients' depressive symptoms and unreliable measurement of their progress over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":21069,"journal":{"name":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","volume":"52 2","pages":"117-153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9172558/pdf/PB-52-2-117.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ham-D is not Hamilton's Depression Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Leon I Rosenberg\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This article will demonstrate that the most widely used versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) used in randomized clinical trials, the Guy 1976 HAM-D<sup>1</sup> and the SIGH-D,<sup>2</sup> have response options that deviate sharply from Max Hamilton's 1960<sup>3</sup> and 1967<sup>4</sup> guidelines. For example, difficulty in concentration, one of the diagnostic criteria for a Major Depressive Episode according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1980, in editions III, IV, IV-TR and 5,<sup>5</sup> is something that Hamilton wrote should be measured in his scale, yet it is not measured in either of the presently used HAM-Ds.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A review was conducted of the four key papers related to the development of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: the 1960 and 1967 papers by Max Hamilton; the HAM-D chapter in the 1976 ECDEU <i>Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology</i> edited by William Guy; and the 1988 article on the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D (SIGH-D) by Janet Williams. Additionally, the Janet Williams updated 2013 SIGH-D<sup>6</sup> is also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When comparing the HAM-D and the SIGH-D with the gold standard Hamilton guidelines from his 1960 and 1967 articles, 13 of the 17 items contain significant errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant differences between the currently used HAM-Ds and the guidelines set forth by Max Hamilton in 1960 and 1967 will be demonstrated. These discrepancies may produce inconsistencies in administration and scoring, leading to unreliable measurements of subjects' and patients' depressive symptoms and unreliable measurement of their progress over time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychopharmacology bulletin\",\"volume\":\"52 2\",\"pages\":\"117-153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9172558/pdf/PB-52-2-117.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychopharmacology bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopharmacology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:本文将证明在随机临床试验中使用最广泛的汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表(HAM-D), Guy 1976 HAM-D1和sighd,2的反应选项与Max Hamilton 19603和19674的指南有很大的偏差。例如,根据1980年以来的精神疾病诊断与统计手册(DSM),在III, IV, IV- tr和5,5版中,汉密尔顿写道,注意力集中困难是重度抑郁症发作的诊断标准之一,应该在他的量表中测量,但目前使用的HAM-Ds都没有测量。方法:对汉米尔顿抑郁评定量表编制过程中涉及的四篇重要论文进行综述:1960年和1967年汉米尔顿发表的论文;William Guy编辑的1976年ECDEU精神药理学评估手册中的HAM-D章节;以及1988年Janet Williams关于HAM-D (sighd)结构化面试指南的文章。此外,Janet Williams更新的2013 sighg - d6也进行了审查。结果:将HAM-D和sighd与1960年和1967年文章的金标准Hamilton指南进行比较,17个项目中有13个存在显著错误。结论:目前使用的ham - d与Max Hamilton在1960年和1967年提出的指南之间的显著差异将被证明。这些差异可能导致给药和评分的不一致,导致对受试者和患者抑郁症状的不可靠测量,以及对其随时间进展的不可靠测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Ham-D is not Hamilton's Depression Scale.

Introduction: This article will demonstrate that the most widely used versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) used in randomized clinical trials, the Guy 1976 HAM-D1 and the SIGH-D,2 have response options that deviate sharply from Max Hamilton's 19603 and 19674 guidelines. For example, difficulty in concentration, one of the diagnostic criteria for a Major Depressive Episode according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1980, in editions III, IV, IV-TR and 5,5 is something that Hamilton wrote should be measured in his scale, yet it is not measured in either of the presently used HAM-Ds.

Method: A review was conducted of the four key papers related to the development of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: the 1960 and 1967 papers by Max Hamilton; the HAM-D chapter in the 1976 ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology edited by William Guy; and the 1988 article on the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D (SIGH-D) by Janet Williams. Additionally, the Janet Williams updated 2013 SIGH-D6 is also reviewed.

Results: When comparing the HAM-D and the SIGH-D with the gold standard Hamilton guidelines from his 1960 and 1967 articles, 13 of the 17 items contain significant errors.

Conclusion: Significant differences between the currently used HAM-Ds and the guidelines set forth by Max Hamilton in 1960 and 1967 will be demonstrated. These discrepancies may produce inconsistencies in administration and scoring, leading to unreliable measurements of subjects' and patients' depressive symptoms and unreliable measurement of their progress over time.

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
Psychopharmacology bulletin
Psychopharmacology bulletin PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-PSYCHIATRY
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy Related to Duloxetine-Atomoxetine Combination in an Adolescent with ADHD and Comorbid GAD. On the Origins of MAOI Misconceptions: Reaffirming their Role in Melancholic Depression. Alzheimer's and Dementia Guidelines and Tables. Captagone & Morbid Jealousy. Are Standardized Tests Sensitive to Early Cognitive Change in Parkinson's Disease?
×
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