Universität zu Köln

Pagel, Tobias, Franklin, Jeremy ORCID: 0000-0003-1536-0925 and Baethge, Christopher (2014). Schizoaffective disorder diagnosed according to different diagnostic criteria - systematic literature search and meta-analysis of key clinical characteristics and heterogeneity. J. Affect. Disord., 156. S. 111 - 119. AMSTERDAM: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV. ISSN 1573-2517

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Background: Schizoaffective disorder is viewed as a heterogeneous diagnosis among psychotic illnesses. Different diagnostic systems differ in their definition with DSM (-IIIR, -IV, and -V) providing a narrower definition than RDC and ICD-10, It is unclear whether this difference is reflected in patient samples diagnosed according to different diagnostic systems. Methods: Exploratory study based on a systematic review of studies of schizoaffective disorder samples diagnosed by either RDC and ICD-10 (group of broad criteria) or DSM-IIIR and 4V (narrow criteria); comparison (by Mann-Whitney-U-tests) of key characteristics, such as age, number of hospitalizations, or scores in psychometric tests, between more broadly and more narrowly cleaned schizoaffective disorder samples using standard deviations as a measurement of heterogeneity as well as weighted means and percentages. To reduce selection bias only studies including schizoaffective patient samples together with affective disorder and schizophrenia samples were selected. Results: 55 studies were included, 14 employing RDC, 4 ICD-10, 20 DSM-IIIR, and 17 DSM-IV. Thirteen characteristics were compared: patients diagnosed according to broader criteria had fewer previous hospitalizations (2.2 vs. 54) and were both less often male (42 vs. 51%) and married (21 vs. 4M. Heterogeneity was similar in both groups but slightly higher in RDC and [CD- 10 samples than in DSM-IIIR and -IV-samples: +4% regarding demographic and clinical course data and +13% regarding psychometric tests (pooled SD). Limitations: Secular trends and different designs may have confounded the results and limit generalizability. Some comparisons were underpowered. Conclusions: Differences in diagnostic criteria are reflected in key characteristics of samples. The association of larger heterogeneity with wider diagnostic criteria supports employing standard deviations as a measurement of heterogeneity. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID ORCID Put Code Pagel, Tobias UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED Franklin, Jeremy UNSPECIFIED orcid.org/0000-0003-1536-0925 UNSPECIFIED Baethge, Christopher UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED UNSPECIFIED
URN:	urn:nbn:de:hbz:38-445601
DOI:	10.1016/j.jad.2013.12.001
Journal or Publication Title:	J. Affect. Disord.
Volume:	156
Page Range:	S. 111 - 119
Date:	2014
Publisher:	ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Place of Publication:	AMSTERDAM
ISSN:	1573-2517
Language:	English
Faculty:	Unspecified
Divisions:	Unspecified
Subjects:	no entry
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Keywords Language TERM-FOLLOW-UP; BIPOLAR DISORDER; PSYCHIATRIC-DISORDERS; PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS; MOOD DISORDERS; NEGATIVE SYMPTOMS; THOUGHT-DISORDER; DSM-IV; SCHIZOPHRENIA; FEATURES Multiple languages Clinical Neurology; Psychiatry Multiple languages
URI:	http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/id/eprint/44560