These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: [Standardized diagnosing: computer-assisted (CIDI) diagnoses compared to clinically-judged diagnoses in a psychosomatic setting].
    Author: Becker J, Kocalevent RD, Rose M, Fliege H, Walter OB, Frommer J, Klapp BF.
    Journal: Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol; 2006 Jan; 56(1):5-14. PubMed ID: 16421777.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Within the past two decades, there has been an increasing trend towards the use of empirically-based, standardized instruments to diagnose mental disorders. The purpose of this study was to investigate the congruence between clinically-derived and standardized computerized diagnoses using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in a psychosomatic setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: N = 230 inpatients treated at the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité Berlin, were diagnosed for mental disorders by experienced clinicians and by the CIDI according to the diagnostic criteria of ICD-10 and DSM-IV. RESULTS: Congruence between computerized and clinically-derived diagnoses for all mental disorders was fair to poor (kappa = 0.0 - 0.33). The diagnostic congruence of somatoform (F45), anxiety (F40 - 41), depressive (F32 - 34), eating (F50) and dissociative disorders (F44) and disorders due to psychoactive substance use (F10 - 19) was fairly low (kappa = 0.19 - 0.33). Diagnostic congruence of diagnoses of reactions to severe stress (F43) and obsessive compulsive disorders (F42) was particularly poor (kappa = 0.0 - 0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall diagnostic congruence between computerized and clinical diagnostics was unsatisfactory. Thus, the validity of computer-assisted standardized interviews - like the CIDI - is questionable in a psychosomatic setting.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]