Journal of affective disorders · 2011
Affective temperaments in clinical practice: a validation study in mood disorders.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Vöhringer P A, Whitham E A, Thommi S B, Holtzman N S, Khrad H, Ghaemi S N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We sought to examine correlations between clinical validators and temperaments in clinical practice.
METHODS: We provided the self-report TEMPS-A (50 item long) to 123 consecutive patients seen in the Mood Disorders Program of Tufts Medical Center. Temperament was assessed as cyclothymia, dysthymia, irritable or hyperthymia. Cut-offs were tested using (50%) and (75%) thresholds of affirmative responses, as well as highest percent for dominant temperament. We reported no dominant temperament at 75% cut-off . Multivariate regression modeling was conducted to assess confounding bias.
RESULTS: Using clinical and demographic validators, cyclothymia was the most strongly validated temperament, followed by dysthymia and hyperthymia. Irritable temperament did not appear to be valid in this sample. A 75% item endorsement cut-off appeared to identify clinically important temperaments in slightly less than half of this sample. Those without any temperament at 75% cut-off had better prognostic features. 50% cut-off was highly nonspecific, and poorly correlated with diagnostic validators.
CONCLUSIONS: Affective temperaments correlate with clinical validators, most robustly for cyclothymia. 75% cut-off on the TEMPS may provide a useful categorical definition of abnormal affective temperaments in mood disorders. With that definition, slightly less than one-half of patients with mood disorders have affective temperaments. Those without abnormal affective temperaments have better prognostic features.
METHODS: We provided the self-report TEMPS-A (50 item long) to 123 consecutive patients seen in the Mood Disorders Program of Tufts Medical Center. Temperament was assessed as cyclothymia, dysthymia, irritable or hyperthymia. Cut-offs were tested using (50%) and (75%) thresholds of affirmative responses, as well as highest percent for dominant temperament. We reported no dominant temperament at 75% cut-off . Multivariate regression modeling was conducted to assess confounding bias.
RESULTS: Using clinical and demographic validators, cyclothymia was the most strongly validated temperament, followed by dysthymia and hyperthymia. Irritable temperament did not appear to be valid in this sample. A 75% item endorsement cut-off appeared to identify clinically important temperaments in slightly less than half of this sample. Those without any temperament at 75% cut-off had better prognostic features. 50% cut-off was highly nonspecific, and poorly correlated with diagnostic validators.
CONCLUSIONS: Affective temperaments correlate with clinical validators, most robustly for cyclothymia. 75% cut-off on the TEMPS may provide a useful categorical definition of abnormal affective temperaments in mood disorders. With that definition, slightly less than one-half of patients with mood disorders have affective temperaments. Those without abnormal affective temperaments have better prognostic features.