The American journal on addictions · 2016
Agreement between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for alcohol use disorder among outpatients suffering from depressive and anxiety disorders.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Bartoli Francesco, Carrà Giuseppe, Biagi Enrico, Crocamo Cristina, Dakanalis Antonios, Di Carlo Francesco, Parma Francesca, Perin Anna Paola, Di Giacomo Ester, Zappa Luigi, Madeddu Fabio, Colmegna Fabrizia, Clerici Massimo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Since significant differences have been reported, we estimated agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD).
METHODS: We assessed 327 outpatients (mean age: 45.2 ± 13.4) with depressive or anxiety disorders.
RESULTS: Absolute differences in prevalence rates between DSM-5 and DSM-IV AUD ranged from -1.1% (subjects with anxiety disorders) to +1.8% (tobacco smokers). The agreement was excellent (k = 0.88), also accounting for specific subgroups (relevant k coefficients >0.80).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: DSM-5 criteria did not inflate AUD rates.
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Our results have epidemiological significance since, unlike previous reports, we found diagnostic stability between new and old AUD criteria in this clinical population. (Am J Addict 2017;26:53-56).
METHODS: We assessed 327 outpatients (mean age: 45.2 ± 13.4) with depressive or anxiety disorders.
RESULTS: Absolute differences in prevalence rates between DSM-5 and DSM-IV AUD ranged from -1.1% (subjects with anxiety disorders) to +1.8% (tobacco smokers). The agreement was excellent (k = 0.88), also accounting for specific subgroups (relevant k coefficients >0.80).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: DSM-5 criteria did not inflate AUD rates.
SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Our results have epidemiological significance since, unlike previous reports, we found diagnostic stability between new and old AUD criteria in this clinical population. (Am J Addict 2017;26:53-56).