Reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses among electroconvulsive therapy patients with chronic affective disorders

Klaus Damgaard Jakobsen; Thomas Folkmann Hansen; Henrik Dam; Ejner Bundgaard Larsen; Ulrik Gether; Thomas Mears Werge

Reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses among electroconvulsive therapy patients with chronic affective disorders

Klaus Damgaard Jakobsen, Thomas Folkmann Hansen, Henrik Dam, Ejner Bundgaard Larsen, Ulrik Gether, Thomas Mears Werge

Neuropharm and Genetics

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Diagnostic reliability is of major concern both to clinicians and researchers. The aim has been to investigate the trustworthiness of clinical ICD-10 affective disorder diagnoses for research purpose. Methods: 150 ECT patients with chronic affective disorders were investigated. A standardized schema for basic anamnesis and the Operational Criteria Checklist for Psychotic and Affective Illness (OPCRIT) were used. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of clinical affective disorder ICD-10 diagnoses and the formal agreement between clinical ICD-10, OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses were determined using unweighted K-statistics. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical bipolar diagnoses was 0.55, 0.75, 0.42 and 0.84, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical unipolar diagnoses was 0.79, 0.55, 0.77 and 0.58, respectively. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 bipolar vs. non-bipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.28. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 unipolar vs. non-unipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.35. The agreement between OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses, on bipolar vs. non-bipolar disorders was high, K = 0.91, and the agreement on unipolar vs. non-unipolar disorders was fairly high, K = 0.78. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses of affective disorders from chronic subjects with a history of ECT is problematic despite sample homogeneity on basic clinical, demographic and epidemiological parameters
Udgivelsesdato: 2008

Original language	English
Journal	European Journal of Psychiatry
Volume	22
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	161-172
Number of pages	11
ISSN	0213-6163
Publication status	Published - 2008

Cite this

@article{4ea21570f82011ddb219000ea68e967b,

title = "Reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses among electroconvulsive therapy patients with chronic affective disorders",

abstract = "Background and Objectives: Diagnostic reliability is of major concern both to clinicians and researchers. The aim has been to investigate the trustworthiness of clinical ICD-10 affective disorder diagnoses for research purpose. Methods: 150 ECT patients with chronic affective disorders were investigated. A standardized schema for basic anamnesis and the Operational Criteria Checklist for Psychotic and Affective Illness (OPCRIT) were used. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of clinical affective disorder ICD-10 diagnoses and the formal agreement between clinical ICD-10, OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses were determined using unweighted K-statistics. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical bipolar diagnoses was 0.55, 0.75, 0.42 and 0.84, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical unipolar diagnoses was 0.79, 0.55, 0.77 and 0.58, respectively. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 bipolar vs. non-bipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.28. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 unipolar vs. non-unipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.35. The agreement between OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses, on bipolar vs. non-bipolar disorders was high, K = 0.91, and the agreement on unipolar vs. non-unipolar disorders was fairly high, K = 0.78. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses of affective disorders from chronic subjects with a history of ECT is problematic despite sample homogeneity on basic clinical, demographic and epidemiological parameters Udgivelsesdato: 2008",

author = "Jakobsen, {Klaus Damgaard} and Hansen, {Thomas Folkmann} and Henrik Dam and Larsen, {Ejner Bundgaard} and Ulrik Gether and Werge, {Thomas Mears}",

note = "JEnglishArticleJakobsen, KD, Mental Hlth Ctr Hvidovre, Univ Dept Psychiat, Sect 807,Broenbyoestervej 160, DK-2605 Brondby, [email protected] JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRYSARAGOOSEPO BOX 6029, 50080 SARAGOOSE, SPAINEUR J PSYCHIATJUL-SEPDiscipline: Psychiatry361BL",

year = "2008",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "161--172",

journal = "European Journal of Psychiatry",

issn = "0213-6163",

publisher = "Universidad de Zaragoza Facultad de Medicina",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses among electroconvulsive therapy patients with chronic affective disorders

AU - Jakobsen, Klaus Damgaard

AU - Hansen, Thomas Folkmann

AU - Dam, Henrik

AU - Larsen, Ejner Bundgaard

AU - Gether, Ulrik

AU - Werge, Thomas Mears

N1 - JEnglishArticleJakobsen, KD, Mental Hlth Ctr Hvidovre, Univ Dept Psychiat, Sect 807,Broenbyoestervej 160, DK-2605 Brondby, [email protected] JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRYSARAGOOSEPO BOX 6029, 50080 SARAGOOSE, SPAINEUR J PSYCHIATJUL-SEPDiscipline: Psychiatry361BL

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Background and Objectives: Diagnostic reliability is of major concern both to clinicians and researchers. The aim has been to investigate the trustworthiness of clinical ICD-10 affective disorder diagnoses for research purpose. Methods: 150 ECT patients with chronic affective disorders were investigated. A standardized schema for basic anamnesis and the Operational Criteria Checklist for Psychotic and Affective Illness (OPCRIT) were used. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of clinical affective disorder ICD-10 diagnoses and the formal agreement between clinical ICD-10, OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses were determined using unweighted K-statistics. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical bipolar diagnoses was 0.55, 0.75, 0.42 and 0.84, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical unipolar diagnoses was 0.79, 0.55, 0.77 and 0.58, respectively. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 bipolar vs. non-bipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.28. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 unipolar vs. non-unipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.35. The agreement between OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses, on bipolar vs. non-bipolar disorders was high, K = 0.91, and the agreement on unipolar vs. non-unipolar disorders was fairly high, K = 0.78. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses of affective disorders from chronic subjects with a history of ECT is problematic despite sample homogeneity on basic clinical, demographic and epidemiological parameters Udgivelsesdato: 2008

AB - Background and Objectives: Diagnostic reliability is of major concern both to clinicians and researchers. The aim has been to investigate the trustworthiness of clinical ICD-10 affective disorder diagnoses for research purpose. Methods: 150 ECT patients with chronic affective disorders were investigated. A standardized schema for basic anamnesis and the Operational Criteria Checklist for Psychotic and Affective Illness (OPCRIT) were used. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of clinical affective disorder ICD-10 diagnoses and the formal agreement between clinical ICD-10, OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses were determined using unweighted K-statistics. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical bipolar diagnoses was 0.55, 0.75, 0.42 and 0.84, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the clinical unipolar diagnoses was 0.79, 0.55, 0.77 and 0.58, respectively. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 bipolar vs. non-bipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.28. The agreement between clinical ICD-10 and OPCRIT ICD-10 unipolar vs. non-unipolar diagnoses was low, K = 0.35. The agreement between OPCRIT ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses, on bipolar vs. non-bipolar disorders was high, K = 0.91, and the agreement on unipolar vs. non-unipolar disorders was fairly high, K = 0.78. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnoses of affective disorders from chronic subjects with a history of ECT is problematic despite sample homogeneity on basic clinical, demographic and epidemiological parameters Udgivelsesdato: 2008

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0213-6163

VL - 22

SP - 161

EP - 172

JO - European Journal of Psychiatry

JF - European Journal of Psychiatry

IS - 3

ER -