4.7 Article

Dynamics of neurological soft signs and its relationship to clinical course in patients with first-episode schizophrenia

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 200, Issue 2-3, Pages 67-72

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.03.008

Keywords

Clinical course; Follow-up; Neurological Evaluation Scale; NES; Neurological soft signs; NSS; First-episode schizophrenia

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [MSM0021622404]
  2. IGA MZ CR [9890-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the study was to assess the dynamics of neurological soft signs (NSS) over four years from the clinical onset of schizophrenia, depending on the clinical course of the disease, and to evaluate the relationship of NSS to symptomatic dimensions in patients with first-episode schizophrenia. Sixty-eight patients with first-episode schizophrenia were included in the trial. The clinical status was assessed using Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at the same time as the neurological examination, at admission to the hospital for first-episode schizophrenia and at a check-up examination four years later. The assessment of NSS using the Neurological Evaluation Scale (NES) coincided with the assessment of the clinical condition of the patients. According to the Andreasen remission criterion of schizophrenia, after four years we found that 57% of patients' were remitters and 43% were non-remitters. During the monitoring period, in remitters total NES score and sensory integration/sequencing of motor acts items of the NES decreased. In non-remitters, increase in the total NES score and the 'others' item of the NES was observed. A connection between the dynamics of NSS and the clinical course of schizophrenia, over the period of four years, and a relationship between NSS and negative schizophrenia symptoms was found. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available