Detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals in China: B-criteria instrument has better accuracy-A secondary analysis.
PHQ-15
SSD-12
SSS-8
WI-8
somatic symptom disorder
Journal
Frontiers in psychiatry
ISSN: 1664-0640
Titre abrégé: Front Psychiatry
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101545006
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
05
2022
accepted:
07
10
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of the PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and Whitley 8 and their combination in detecting DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in general hospitals. In our former multicenter cross-sectional study enrolling 699 outpatients from different departments in five cities in China, SCID-5 for SSD was administered to diagnose SSD and instruments including PHQ-15, SSS-8, SSD-12 and WI-8 were used to evaluate the SSD A and B criteria. In this secondary analysis study, we investigate which instrument or combination of instrument has best accuracy for detecting SSD in outpatients. Receiver operator curves were created, and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were assessed. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the optimal individual cut points. Data from In general hospital settings, SSD-12 or WI-8 alone may be sufficient for detecting somatic symptom disorder, as effective as when combined with the PHQ-15 or SSS-8 for evaluating physical burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36339843
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.935597
pmc: PMC9634742
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
935597Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Cao, Wei, Fritzsche, Toussaint, Li, Zhang, Zhang, Chen, Wu, Ma, Li, Ren, Lu and Leonhart.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Author JR is employed by General Hospital of Jincheng Anthracite Coal Mining Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):53-60
pubmed: 26713718
J Psychosom Res. 2011 Dec;71(6):387-91
pubmed: 22118380
Fam Pract. 2018 May 23;35(3):342-347
pubmed: 29145575
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020 Jan - Feb;62:63-71
pubmed: 31841874
Psychosom Med. 2020 Apr;82(3):337-344
pubmed: 32058460
Psychosom Med. 2016 Jan;78(1):5-12
pubmed: 26461855
J Psychosom Res. 2011 Aug;71(2):69-73
pubmed: 21767685
J Psychosom Res. 2017 Jun;97:9-17
pubmed: 28606504
Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):71-82
pubmed: 23111499
Psychosom Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;64(2):258-66
pubmed: 11914441
J Psychosom Res. 1999 Mar;46(3):261-73
pubmed: 10193917
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(2):227-39
pubmed: 16889108
J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):223-8
pubmed: 23972410
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 05;16:89
pubmed: 27044309
J Psychosom Res. 2012 Apr;72(4):311-7
pubmed: 22405227
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007 Mar-Apr;29(2):147-55
pubmed: 17336664
J Psychosom Res. 2017 Oct;101:44-50
pubmed: 28867423
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Oct 18;16(1):351
pubmed: 27756342
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):399-407
pubmed: 24276929
Psychol Med. 2020 Jan;50(2):324-333
pubmed: 30729902
Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 01;12:557662
pubmed: 34276457
Psychosomatics. 2016 May-Jun;57(3):283-91
pubmed: 27034149
J Psychosom Res. 2020 Nov;138:110245
pubmed: 32950761
Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 23;9:127-139
pubmed: 28275316