抑郁发作与躯体形式障碍的比较

目的：比较抑郁发作与躯体形式障碍的异同。方法：了解患者临床情况及就医方式。以自编访谈提纲及汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)对68例抑郁发作患者和47例躯体形式障碍患者进行调查。结果：两组患者性别及首次就医方式差异有显著性;在常见的14项躯体化症状中,8项差异显著。两组的HAMD总分和7个因子分差异均有非常显著性,除焦虑／躯体化因子在躯体形式障碍组显著高于抑郁发作组外,其余各项均低于抑郁发作组。结论：抑郁发作和躯体形式障碍患者各有临床特点。     

躯体形式障碍与躯体症状障碍患者临床特征比较

目的探索三甲综合医院门诊躯体形式障碍(somatoform disorder,SFD)和躯体症状障碍(somatic symptom disorder,SSD)患者临床特征的差异。方法采用方便取样法纳入消化内科、神经内科、中医科、精神科门诊候诊患者,完成患者健康问卷躯体症状群量表(Patient Health Questionnaire-15,PHQ-15),患者健康问卷抑郁量表(Patient Health Questionnare-9,PHQ-9),广泛性焦虑障碍量表(General Anxiey Disorder Scale,GAD-7),躯体症状障碍诊断B标准量表(Somatic Symptom Disorder-B Criteria Scale,SSD-12),世界卫生组织残疾评定方案2.0(WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0,WHO DAS 2.0)等自评问卷,并经结构化访谈得出SSD和SFD诊断,采用独立样本t检验分析并比较SSD和SFD患者的临床特征及差异。结果699例受访者中,236例(33.8%)和431例(61.7%)分别被诊断为SSD和SFD,二者诊断一致性较低(Cohenκ=0.291 P<0.01)。SSD患者在PHQ-15[(12.01±5.54)分比(10.38±5.53)分,t=3.624]、PHQ-9[(11.84±6.76)分比(9.40±6.57)分,t=4.546]、GAD-7[(9.70±6.08)分比(7.34±5.92)分,t=4.871]、SSD-12[(23.60±11.43)分比(16.52±12.64)分,t=7.154]和WHO DAS 2.0[(22.65±8.52)分比(19.96±7.77)分,t=4.128]量表得分显著高于SFD患者,均P<0.01。结论SSD和SFD诊断一致性较低;相对于SFD患者,SSD患者在躯体症状负荷、焦虑抑郁情绪、与症状相关情绪、思维和行为问题、社会功能损害更严重。     

综合医院躯体形式障碍患者的心理测量特征研究

目的了解躯体形式障碍患者心理测量学及临床特征,并探讨其可能的机制.方法对他科转诊或会诊的综合医院躯体形式障碍患者(符合CCMD-3标准)30例进行MMPI测试,与首诊于咨询门诊的139例神经症性障碍患者作了比较,并分析两组诈病指数的差异.结果躯体形式障碍患者除Hs、F量表分高于首诊组(P＜0.01及0.05)外余均无差异;两组诈病指数差异无显著性(P＞0.05).结论躯体形式障碍患者MMPI剖图特点与神经症性障碍患者无本质差异,且并未比神经症性障碍患者有更多的伪装倾向.     

躯体化障碍的临床特征、治疗及临床转归的研究

目的 探讨综合医院中躯体化障碍患者的临床特点、治疗与症状转归情况.方法 对符合CCMD-3躯体化障碍诊断标准的155例患者用自编调查表对患者一般资料进行调查.应用躯体形式障碍症状筛查量表(SOMS-7)评定临床症状,抑郁自评量表(SDS)和焦虑自评量表(SAS)评价情绪状况.给予小剂量SSRI类或SNRI类抗抑郁药物治...     

躯体化障碍和未分化躯体形式障碍患者辅助检查项目和费用调查

目的 了解躯体化障碍和未分化躯体形式障碍患者辅助检查项目和费用及其相关因素.方法 对115例躯体化障碍或未分化躯体形式障碍的患者,采用自编既往就诊检查情况调查表、自编躯体症状自评清单、症状自评量表、汉密尔顿焦虑量表和汉密尔顿抑郁量表进行评估.结果 患者就诊前辅助检查总费用为 72～10 948 元(中位数 1 068 元);检查频度为 1 ～ 53 次(中位数9.0次);检查项目数为 1～13 项(中位数6.0项).重复检查频度为 0～44 次(中位数 3 次),重复项目数为 0 ～ 9 项(中位数 2 项).检查频度及重复频度较高的项目为血常规、B超、CT、尿常规、摄片、生化常规、MRI、心电图、粪常规.检查频度与病程、就诊科室数及HAMD总分均呈正相关(P＜0.05),检查总费用与检查频度呈正相关(P＜0.01). 结论躯体化障碍和未分化躯体形式障碍患者辅助检查种类多,重复检查多,应引起重视.     

舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的临床研究

目的 观察舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效和不良反应.方法 采用开放式临床研究方法,收集60例躯体形式障碍患者,接受可变剂量的舍曲林治疗8周.在治疗前和治疗后第1、2、4、8周末分别采用症状自评量表(SCL-90)躯体化因子和临床总体印象量表(CGI-SI)评定,用不良反应症状量表(TESS)评定并记录药物的不良反应.结果 57例完成8周试验.总有效率为80.7%,显效率49.1%.治疗后SCL-90躯体化因子评分和CGI-SI评分较治疗前明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).常见的不良反应为头晕、嗜睡和体质量增加等,程度较轻.结论 舍曲林治疗躯体形式障碍的疗效肯定,不良反应少,安全性依从性好.     

躯体化障碍患者的临床特征

目的:研究综合医院神经内科躯体化障碍患者的临床表现特点。方法:对于符合躯体化障碍诊断标准的90例患者,用自编调查表对患者进行一般资料调查,用躯体症状报告单对患者进行躯体症状统计,用抑郁自评量表(SDS)和焦虑自评量表(SAS)评定抑郁和焦虑状态。结果:躯体化障碍患者女性较男性多见,平均病程5年,过去一年就诊次数平均为12次。对医生的诊断和治疗不满意,85.6%的患者表示可疑或不信任。患者临床症状出现频率高的依次是头晕(74.4%)、头痛(71.1%)、睡眠障碍(70.0%)等。症状可以累及多个系统,其中慢性疼痛症状敏感性最高。躯体化障碍与抑郁焦虑障碍有很高的共患率,并且抑郁症状越严重,症状数目越多。结论:躯体化障碍临床症状复杂多样,其中慢性疼痛症状敏感性最高。     

躯体形式障碍患者的述情障碍

目的：探讨躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况,以及与述情障碍的关系.方法：采用症状自评量表（SCL-90）及多伦多述情障碍量表（TAS）对60例躯体形式障碍患者（患者组）和60名健康自愿者（对照组）进行测评,并对躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况与述情障碍作相关分析.结果：患者组SCL-90总分及躯体化、人际关系敏感、抑郁、焦虑、偏执、精神病性6个因子评分均显著高于对照组（P＜0.05或P＜0.01）;其TAS总分及因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅳ评分亦均显著高于对照组（P＜0.05或P＜0.01）,而因子Ⅲ评分两组间比较,差别则无统计学意义.躯体形式障碍患者的SCL-90总分与TAS总分及因子Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅳ评分均呈显著性正相关;而与因子Ⅲ评分则无显著性相关.结论：躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况较差,并与述情障碍有关.     

躯体形式障碍患者生活质量调查

目的:调查躯体形式障碍患者的生活质量,分析影响生活质量的有关因素.方法:用生活质量综合评定问卷(CQOLI-74)、90项症状清单(SCL-90)对61例躯体形式障碍患者和64名正常者进行自评.结果:患者组GQOLI-74评分普遍显著较低;SCL-90评分普遍显著较高.影响生活质量的因素包括:年龄,性别,文化,职业,SCL-90的抑郁因子及躯体化因子.影响社会功能的因子还包括人际关系及精神病性因子.结论:躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状态及生活质量明显低于正常人,改善抑郁状态和躯体化症状能提高躯体形式障碍患者的生活质量.     

氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍的临床研究

目的探讨氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍的临床疗效和不良反应。方法将符合CCMD-3诊断标准的68例躯体形式障碍患者随机分为两组,对照组予氟西汀合并奥氮平治疗,研究组在氟西汀合并奥氮平治疗的基础上辅助静滴氯硝西泮,疗程均为8周。以汉密顿抑郁量表（HAMD）于治疗前后评定疗效,用治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）监测药物不良反应。结果研究组疗效明显高于对照组,且两组间不良反应未见显著性差异。结论氯硝西泮辅助治疗躯体形式障碍疗效好,不良反应轻,安全性高。     

脑电生物反馈治疗躯体形式障碍的对照研究

目的 研究脑电生物反馈治疗躯体形式障碍的安全有效性.方法 入组54例患者随机分为研究组（帕罗西汀联合脑电生物反馈治疗）和对照组（单用帕罗西汀治疗）,治疗6周;采用症状自评量表（SCL-90）评定疗效,副反应量表（ TESS） 评定不良反应.结果治疗后2组SCL-90躯体化、抑郁、焦虑、恐怖、强迫各因子分较治疗前明显减少,研究组SCL-90躯体化、抑郁、焦虑因子分明显低于对照组（P＜0.05）,2组各时期TESS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论脑电生物反馈治疗联合帕罗西汀治疗躯体形式障碍疗效更为显著,不增加不良反应.     

The prevalence of obsessive compulsive symptoms in a sample of Egyptian psychiatric patients

Obsessions can occur in many psychiatric disorders or they may constitute the entire illness, which is then referred to as an obsessional state (Rees, 1993). The relationship of obsessive compulsive symptoms (OCS) to different psychiatric disorders is still controversial. This work was undertaken to study the co-occurrence and phenomenology of OCS with other psychiatric disorders. We examined a sample of 372 psychiatric outpatients using the arabic version of Yale Brown obsessive-compulsive symptom (Y-BOCS) checklist and compared them with a control group composed of 308 non-psychiatric subjects. Subjects were additionally assessed by means of the obsession symptom section of the PSE (10th) edition for trait rating, the arabic version of the Eysenck rigidity scale and the arabic version of the religious orientation scale. OCS were found to be significantly higher in the different psychiatric categories than in the non-psychiatric categories; 83% of patients with neurotic, stress related and somatoform disorders, 51% of patients with mood disorders and 47% of patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders were found to have OCS in their symptomatology. Furthermore, the data suggest that OCS in psychiatric patients have a distinct phenomenology from that in non-psychiatric subjects. The results did not however reveal a relationship between OCS and either rigidity or religious orientation.     

The question of symptom lateralization in conversion disorder

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not conversion symptoms are lateralized. Studies have shown a predominant left-oriented manifestation of symptoms for most somatoform disorders. The reports in the literature on the lateralization of conversion symptoms, however, are rather conflicting. They show left-sided, right-sided, or no symptom lateralization in conversion disorders. METHODS: One hundred fourteen patients with conversion disorder were screened for symptom lateralization. RESULTS: Those patients with unilateral symptoms (32.5%) showed no significant bias toward left or right symptom presentation. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, and the conflicting findings from previous studies, we conclude that there is insufficient support for lateralization theories in conversion disorder.     

Amplification and attribution styles in somatoform and depressive disorders--a study from Bangalore,India

OBJECTIVE: The present investigation aimed to study attribution styles and somatosensory amplification among patients suffering from somatoform and depressive disorders. METHODS: Two groups of 30 patients with diagnoses of somatoform disorder and depressive disorder, respectively (ICD-10 DCR), and one group of 30 normal controls were recruited. The study patients were assessed using the symptom interpretation questionnaire, somatosensory amplification scale, and scales for assessing alexithymia and illness attitudes. RESULTS: The somatoform and depressive disorder patients had greater recent symptom experience than the normal group. The somatoform disorder group had higher somatic attribution scores, the depressive disorder sample had higher psychological attribution scores, and the normal group had higher normalizing attribution scores than the two other groups. Somatoform disorder patients had higher mean amplification scores than depressed patients, who in turn had higher scores than normals. Correlation analyses showed somatic attribution and certain illness attitudes to be closely associated in all three groups. Recent symptom experience was associated with amplification in the somatoform disorder group alone. Recent symptom experience, a diagnosis of somatoform disorder and lower normalizing attribution scores predicted amplification. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that somatoform and depressive disorder patients and normals differ from each other in their attribution styles. There is a clustering of attributes among somatoform disorder patients that include greater symptom experience, which is somatically attributed, and is associated with excessive illness worry, concern and preoccupation with bodily symptoms, and a fear of having or developing a disease. On the other hand, depressed patients and normal subjects who do have a somatic attribution style (though, as a group, they have lower somatic attribution scores than the somatoform disorder group), also harbor hypochondriacal beliefs and related attitudes.     

Somatization revisited: diagnosis and perceived causes of common mental disorders

The assessment of somatoform disorders is complicated by persistent theoretical and practical questions of classification and assessment. Critical rethinking of professional concepts of somatization suggests the value of complementary assessment of patients' illness explanatory models of somatoform and other common mental disorders. We undertook this prospective study to assess medically unexplained somatic symptoms and their patient-perceived causes of illness and to show how patients' explanatory models relate to professional diagnoses of common mental disorders and how they may predict the short-term course of illness. Tertiary care patients (N=186) with prominent somatoform symptoms were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, a locally adapted Explanatory Model Interview to elicit patients' illness experience (priority symptoms) and perceived causes, and clinical self-report questionnaires. The self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline and after 6 months. Diagnostic overlap between somatoform, depressive, and anxiety disorders occurred frequently (79.6%). Patients explained pure somatoform disorders mainly with organic causal attributions; they explained pure depressive and/or anxiety disorders mainly with psychosocial perceived causes, and patients in the diagnostic overlap group typically reported mixed causal attributions. In this last group, among patients with similar levels of symptom severity, organic perceived causes were related to a lower physical health sum score on the MOS Short Form, and psychosocial perceived causes were related to less severe depressive symptoms, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months. Among patients meeting criteria for comorbid somatoform with anxiety and/or depressive disorders, complementary assessment of patient-perceived causes, a key element of illness explanatory models, was related to levels of functional impairment and short-term prognosis. For such patients, causal attributions may be particularly useful to clarify clinically significant features of common mental disorders and thereby contribute to clinical assessment.     

抗抑郁药合并阿立哌唑治疗躯体形式障碍临床分析

目的：探讨抗抑郁药联合小剂量阿立哌唑对躯体形式障碍的疗效。方法：将40例服用西酞普兰联合小剂量阿立哌唑患者（合用组）与38例单服西酞普兰患者（单用组），从药物的起效时间、症状改善时间，治疗后症状自评量表（SCL-90）评分、不良反应，服药依顺性及症状复燃，以及功能失调性态度问卷（DAS）进行评定。结果：合用组在治疗起效与症状改善时间上均较单用组快；治疗后SCL-90某些因子两组差异有显著性，合用组依顺性好，复燃者少，DAS评分明显较低。结论：抗抑郁药联合小剂量的阿立哌唑治疗躯体形式障碍疗效较好。     

Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed?

The recognition of comorbidity has important clinical significance. Comorbidity predicts a poorer outcome for patients with depressive and anxiety disorders, and the presence of multiple psychiatric disorders is associated with greater psychosocial impairment. In routine clinical settings, an unstructured interview is typically used to assess patients. However, unstructured interviews may result in missed diagnoses, with potential negative clinical consequences. The goal of the present study was to examine whether diagnostic comorbidity is less frequently identified during a routine clinical evaluation versus a semistructured diagnostic interview. Axis I diagnoses derived from structured and unstructured clinical interviews were compared in two groups of psychiatric outpatients in the same practice setting. Five hundred individuals presenting for an intake appointment to a general adult psychiatric practice underwent a routine unstructured clinical interview. Subsequent to completion of the first study, the method of conducting diagnostic evaluations was changed and 500 individuals were interviewed with the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID). The two groups had similar demographic characteristics and scored similarly on symptom questionnaires. Individuals interviewed with the SCID were assigned significantly more axis I diagnoses than individuals assessed with an unstructured interview. More than one third of the patients interviewed with the SCID were diagnosed with three or more disorders, in contrast to fewer than 10% of the patients assessed with an unstructured interview. Fifteen disorders were more frequently diagnosed in the SCID sample, and these differences occurred across mood, anxiety, eating, somatoform, and impulse-control disorder categories. The results suggest that in routine clinical practice, clinicians underrecognize diagnostic comorbidity. Anxiety, somatoform, and not otherwise specified (NOS) disorders were the most frequently underdetected disorders. The implications of underdiagnosis for the treatment outcome are discussed.     

Conversion symptoms of patients in psychiatric liaison care]

At the consultation-psychiatric service of a large university hospital conversion disorders present ca. 50% of the "somatoform disorders". The rate of incidence of conversion disorders was 4% of all patients seen in the service, i.e. 20-30 referrals per annum. A report on 103 patients referred during 1987-1990 is given concerning basic sociodemographic data, symptom clusters, course of illness, age at onset of the disorder, psychiatric and family history, psychosocial conditions and intrapsychic conflicts, additional affective disorders and psychophysiological symptoms, illness behaviour, cognitive attitudes towards illness. The rate of 35% patients showing an underlying somatic disorder in addition to their conversion symptoms had to be appreciated. Possible relations of conversion disorders to affective illness, somatization disorder and neurologic disease had to be discussed as to course of illness and theoretical concepts.     

Use of the Adinfer diagnostic system in a study of somatic disorders in general practice]

Somatic complaints are very common in general medical practice. They are not identified as psychic disorders and are treated symptomatically. We explore two kind of problems: 1. methodological problems such as the instruments to use to examine somatic complaints (it is evident that a checklist does not give the best results with suggestible patients); and 2. the relationships between somatic complaints and psychic disorders such as anxiety, depression and somatoform disorders. Psychiatric nosology is by no means clear and includes many diagnoses from "hysteria" to "hypochondria" or "psychosomatic", "somatization". In this study, we compare the symptoms collected by general practitioners, and their clinical diagnoses to those obtained by an automatic DSM-III diagnostic program. Adinfer was modified so that three DSM decision trees were systematically scanned: depressive, anxiety and somatoform disorders. This allows for an epidemiological study of somatic complaints and their relationship to depression and anxiety. The subjects' score on rating scales for anxiety and depression are compared with the diagnoses made by the expert system. We discuss the significance of somatic symptoms, the DSM classes and the value of expert systems in epidemiological studies.