MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/s00787-007-0649-5

Медицинская библиотека · European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2008

Prepubertal mania: diagnostic differences between US and UK clinicians.

Dubicka Bernadka, Carlson Gabrielle A, Vail Andy, Harrington Richard

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that US clinicians diagnose prepubertal mania more commonly than UK clinicians.

METHODS

Five vignettes were presented to 73 UK clinicians and 85 US clinicians. Four cases represented complex scenarios where the diagnosis of mania was thought to be controversial, and one case was a 'classical' case of mania in an older child where it was thought there would be good agreement. Clinicians were asked to determine symptoms of mania, and their preferred diagnoses.

RESULTS

As predicted, overall there were significantly more diagnoses of mania in the US than the UK (P < or = 0.0001). US clinicians were significantly more likely to diagnose mania in three of the four complex cases, and there was good agreement in the case of classical mania. In addition, UK clinicians were significantly more likely to diagnose pervasive developmental disorders and adjustment disorders, whereas obsessive compulsive disorder was more commonly diagnosed in the US.

CONCLUSION

There may be differences in how clinicians in the US and UK interpret mania-like symptoms in younger children, which may have implications for diagnosis and management.

Для цитирования: Dubicka Bernadka, Carlson Gabrielle A, Vail Andy, Harrington Richard. Prepubertal mania: diagnostic differences between US and UK clinicians.. European child & adolescent psychiatry. 2008. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-007-0649-5.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.