4.6 Article

Clinical Factors Associated with Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 160, 期 2, 页码 314-319

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.07.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH063914, K23 MH01739]
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Disease Control
  3. Tourette Syndrome Association
  4. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals
  5. Forest Pharmaceuticals
  6. Ortho-McNeill Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  7. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health
  8. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  9. Brain and Behavior Research Fund
  10. Foundation for Prader-Willi Research
  11. All Children's Hospital Research Foundation
  12. NARSAD
  13. International Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Foundation
  14. University of South Florida Research Council
  15. Joseph Drown Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To explore associated clinical factors in children with pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS). Study design Children with tics, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or both (n = 109) were examined with personal and family history, diagnostic interview, physical examination, medical record review, and measurement of baseline levels of streptococcal antibodies. Results Significant group differences were found on several variables, such that children in whom PANDAS (versus without PANDAS) were more likely to have had dramatic onset, definite remissions, remission of neuropsychiatric symptoms during antibiotic therapy, a history of tonsillectomies/adenoidectomies, evidence of group A streptococcal infection, and clumsiness. Conclusion The identification of clinical features associated with PANDAS should assist in delineating risks for this subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder/tics. (J Pediatr 2012; 160: 314-9).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据