The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2012
Clinical and neurocognitive profiles of subjects at high risk for psychosis with and without obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Hur Ji-Won, Shin Na Young, Jang Joon Hwan, Shim Geumsook, Park Hye Yoon, Hwang Jae Yeon, Kim Sung Nyun, Yoo Jung Hyun, Hong Kyung Sue, Kwon Jun Soo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS), which are common in psychotic-spectrum illnesses, are of clinical interest because of their association with poor prognosis or cognitive dysfunction. However, few studies on the clinical and neurocognitive implications of OCS in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR) have been conducted.
METHOD: Sixty-five UHR subjects [24 with OCS (UHR+OCS), 41 without OCS (UHR-OCS)], and 40 healthy controls were assessed using clinical scales and neurocognitive tests.
RESULTS: Those with UHR+OCS showed more severe clinical symptoms and poorer global functioning as compared to both healthy controls and the UHR-OCS group, according to the results of the Global Assessment of Functioning, the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (total, negative, and general scores). In the neurocognitive domain, those in the UHR-OCS group showed notably greater latency in the Stroop task and more confabulation errors in immediate recall in the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test compared with those in UHR+OCS group, whose performance levels were similar to those of the healthy control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The OCS manifested in UHR individuals was associated with a more severe clinical symptomatic presentation, including lower global functioning and more psychotic symptoms. On the other hand, those with UHR-OCS performed more poorly on some cognitive tests. The features that distinguish the groups can be used for developing prognoses and intervention strategies for the heterogeneous UHR group.
METHOD: Sixty-five UHR subjects [24 with OCS (UHR+OCS), 41 without OCS (UHR-OCS)], and 40 healthy controls were assessed using clinical scales and neurocognitive tests.
RESULTS: Those with UHR+OCS showed more severe clinical symptoms and poorer global functioning as compared to both healthy controls and the UHR-OCS group, according to the results of the Global Assessment of Functioning, the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (total, negative, and general scores). In the neurocognitive domain, those in the UHR-OCS group showed notably greater latency in the Stroop task and more confabulation errors in immediate recall in the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test compared with those in UHR+OCS group, whose performance levels were similar to those of the healthy control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The OCS manifested in UHR individuals was associated with a more severe clinical symptomatic presentation, including lower global functioning and more psychotic symptoms. On the other hand, those with UHR-OCS performed more poorly on some cognitive tests. The features that distinguish the groups can be used for developing prognoses and intervention strategies for the heterogeneous UHR group.