Journal of affective disorders · 2014
Screening for bipolar spectrum disorders: A comprehensive meta-analysis of accuracy studies.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Carvalho André F, Takwoingi Yemisi, Sales Paulo Marcelo G, Soczynska Joanna K, Köhler Cristiano A, Freitas Thiago H, Quevedo João, Hyphantis Thomas N, McIntyre Roger S, Vieta Eduard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bipolar spectrum disorders are frequently under-recognized and/or misdiagnosed in various settings. Several influential publications recommend the routine screening of bipolar disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy studies for the bipolar spectrum diagnostic scale (BSDS), the hypomania checklist (HCL-32) and the mood disorder questionnaire (MDQ) were performed.
METHODS: The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases were searched. Studies were included if the accuracy properties of the screening measures were determined against a DSM or ICD-10 structured diagnostic interview. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate bias.
RESULTS: Fifty three original studies met inclusion criteria (N=21,542). At recommended cutoffs, summary sensitivities were 81%, 66% and 69%, while specificities were 67%, 79% and 86% for the HCL-32, MDQ, and BSDS in psychiatric services, respectively. The HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II bipolar disorder in mental health care centers (P=0.018). At a cutoff of 7, the MDQ had a summary sensitivity of 43% and a summary specificity of 95% for detection of bipolar disorder in primary care or general population settings.
LIMITATIONS: Most studies were performed in mental health care settings. Several included studies had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Although accuracy properties of the three screening instruments did not consistently differ in mental health care services, the HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II BD. More studies in other settings (for example, in primary care) are necessary.
METHODS: The Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases were searched. Studies were included if the accuracy properties of the screening measures were determined against a DSM or ICD-10 structured diagnostic interview. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to rate bias.
RESULTS: Fifty three original studies met inclusion criteria (N=21,542). At recommended cutoffs, summary sensitivities were 81%, 66% and 69%, while specificities were 67%, 79% and 86% for the HCL-32, MDQ, and BSDS in psychiatric services, respectively. The HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II bipolar disorder in mental health care centers (P=0.018). At a cutoff of 7, the MDQ had a summary sensitivity of 43% and a summary specificity of 95% for detection of bipolar disorder in primary care or general population settings.
LIMITATIONS: Most studies were performed in mental health care settings. Several included studies had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Although accuracy properties of the three screening instruments did not consistently differ in mental health care services, the HCL-32 was more accurate than the MDQ for the detection of type II BD. More studies in other settings (for example, in primary care) are necessary.