4.4 Article

Test-retest reliability of schizoaffective disorder compared with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and unipolar depressiona systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BIPOLAR DISORDERS
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 753-768

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12340

关键词

bipolar disorder; kappa; meta-analysis; nosology; schizoaffective disorder; schizophrenia; systematic review; test-retest reliability; unipolar disorder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesSchizoaffective disorder is a frequent diagnosis, and its reliability is subject to ongoing discussion. We compared the diagnostic reliability of schizoaffective disorder with its main differential diagnoses. MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo for all studies on the test-retest reliability of the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder as compared with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and unipolar depression. We used meta-analytic methods to describe and compare Cohen's kappa as well as positive and negative agreement. In addition, multiple pre-specified and post hoc subgroup and sensitivity analyses were carried out. ResultsOut of 4,415 studies screened, 49 studies were included. Test-retest reliability of schizoaffective disorder was consistently lower than that of schizophrenia (in 39 out of 42 studies), bipolar disorder (27/33), and unipolar depression (29/35). The mean difference in kappa between schizoaffective disorder and the other diagnoses was approximately 0.2, and mean Cohen's kappa for schizoaffective disorder was 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.59). While findings were unequivocal and homogeneous for schizoaffective disorder's diagnostic reliability relative to its three main differential diagnoses (dichotomous: smaller versus larger), heterogeneity was substantial for continuous measures, even after subgroup and sensitivity analyses. ConclusionsIn clinical practice and research, schizoaffective disorder's comparatively low diagnostic reliability should lead to increased efforts to correctly diagnose the disorder.

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

4.4
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