4.7 Article

The clinical utility of symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 180, 期 1, 页码 25-29

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.09.005

关键词

Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Symptom dimension; Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y BOCS); Clinical utility

资金

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology [16591154]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16591154] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Factor analyses in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have consistently identified several different symptom dimensions Nevertheless the clinical utility of identifying such symptom dimensions remains somewhat unclear On the basis of their principal symptoms 343 OCD patients were divided into four symptom dimension subgroups 1) contamination/washing 2) hoarding 3) symmetry/repeating and ordering and 4) forbidden thoughts/checking Clinical variables including 1-year treatment outcome were compared across these patient subgroups Most patients (74%) could distinctively be categorized as falling into a particular symptom subgroup The groups were differentially characterized by some demographic and clinical features For instance both the symmetry and hoarding groups were significantly associated with decreased global functioning and greater OCD seventy Moreover the hoarding group was significantly more likely than the others to show longer duration of Illness lower rate of marriage poor insight, and poorer outcome However about a quarter of the participants could not be classified definitively into a particular group Our findings provide partial support for the clinical utility of a simple measure of symptom dimensions in OCD In clinical settings however the limitations of such a simple measure of predominant symptom dimensions should be borne in mind and further work on their validity and utility is needed (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd All rights reserved

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

4.7
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