PloS one · 2020
Utility of TEMPS-A in differentiation between major depressive disorder, bipolar I disorder, and bipolar II disorder.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Morishita Chihiro, Kameyama Rie, Toda Hiroyuki, Masuya Jiro, Ichiki Masahiko, Kusumi Ichiro, Inoue Takeshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The association between temperament characteristics and mood disorders has gained much attention in recent years. The Temperament Evaluation of Memphis, Pisa, Paris and San Diego-autoquestionnaire version (TEMPS-A) is a self-rating scale measuring 5 affective temperament dimensions. In this study, we aimed to clarify whether each affective temperament of TEMPS-A is a differentiating factor between major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar I disorder (BD-I), and bipolar II disorder (BD-II), and analyzed the utility of TEMPS-A in their differential diagnosis in a clinical setting.
METHODS: A total of 346 patients (MDD, n = 176; BD-II, n = 112; BD-I, n = 58) filled out TEMPS-A. To assess the patients' mood state at the time of temperament assessment, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) were also conducted.
RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that cyclothymic and anxious temperament scores were significant factors differentiating the diagnosis of BD-I and BD-II from the diagnosis of MDD, and hyperthymic temperament score was a specific factor for the differential diagnosis of BD-I versus the diagnosis of BD-II.
LIMITATIONS: All of the patients included in our study received treatment in large general hospitals. Because the nature of the present study was cross-sectional, some MDD subjects in this study might have unrecognized BD-I/BD-II.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclothymic and anxious temperament scores assessed by TEMPS-A might enable differentiation between MDD and BD, and hyperthymic temperament score on TEMPS-A might be useful in distinguishing between BD-I and BD-II.
METHODS: A total of 346 patients (MDD, n = 176; BD-II, n = 112; BD-I, n = 58) filled out TEMPS-A. To assess the patients' mood state at the time of temperament assessment, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) were also conducted.
RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that cyclothymic and anxious temperament scores were significant factors differentiating the diagnosis of BD-I and BD-II from the diagnosis of MDD, and hyperthymic temperament score was a specific factor for the differential diagnosis of BD-I versus the diagnosis of BD-II.
LIMITATIONS: All of the patients included in our study received treatment in large general hospitals. Because the nature of the present study was cross-sectional, some MDD subjects in this study might have unrecognized BD-I/BD-II.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclothymic and anxious temperament scores assessed by TEMPS-A might enable differentiation between MDD and BD, and hyperthymic temperament score on TEMPS-A might be useful in distinguishing between BD-I and BD-II.