Depressive symptomatology after mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury: A comparison of three measures
Depressive symptomatology after mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury: A comparison of three measures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.apnu.2006.07.005
复制
发表时间：
2007-02-01
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Williams, Reg A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bay, Esther;Hagerty, Bonnie M.;Williams, Reg A.
创伤性脑损伤后抑郁的测量是有问题的。关于最佳筛查措施存在分歧，脑损伤的症状往往与抑郁症重叠。在75名门诊患者中，我们比较了精神障碍诊断和统计手册第四次修订版（2000年）标准A与三个抑郁量表：神经行为功能（NFI-D）、情绪状态概况（POMS-D）和流行病学研究中心（CES-D）的方面。近40%的门诊患者有明显的抑郁症状。所有措施都是内部一致的，可靠的，高度相关。对于轻中度创伤性脑损伤患者，CES-D是最好的筛查工具，因为它易于管理，检测可能的重度抑郁症的敏感性，其严重程度的确定类别，以及其全面性。在使用NFI-D建立抑郁症严重程度分类方面还需要进一步的努力。(c)2007年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
Measurement of posttraumatic brain injury depression is problematic. Disagreement exists about the best screening measure, and symptoms of brain injury often overlap those of depression. In an outpatient sample of 75 persons, we compared aspects of Criterion A of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Revision, Text Revision (2000), with three depression subscales: the Neurobehavioral Functioning (NFI-D), Profile of Moods State (POMS-D), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies (CES-D). Nearly 40% of this outpatient sample had significant levels of depressive symptoms. All measures were internally consistent, reliable, and highly correlated. For persons with mild-to-moderate traumatic brain injury, the CES-D was the best screening instrument because of its ease in administration, sensitivity in detecting probable major depressive disorders, its established categories of severity, and its comprehensiveness. Further effort in the establishment of depression severity categories using the NFI-D is needed. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.