MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1525143674 · doi:10.1177/070674371205700301

Canadian Guidelines for the Evidence-Based Treatment of Tic Disorders

2012· editorial· en· W1525143674 sur OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Paul Sandor, Alan Carroll

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2012
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Établissements canadiensGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésPsychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canadian treatment guidelines regarding the management of tic disorders, including Tourette syndrome (TS), have have been long overdue. Ever since the syndrome was first described by Georges Gilles de la Tourette in 1885,' TS was considered to be a rare but fascinating disorder. There are now considerable data that document the prevalence of TS to be around 1% of the general population.2 This means that the average general practitioner with a caseload of 3000 patients will care for about 30 patients with this condition. The many different agents that have been in use reflects that no ideal treatment has emerged, to date. Moreover, there has been no clear consensus in Canada about the sequence in which the available treatments should be employed. Treatment becomes more complex yet when one considers that more than one-half of patients with TS present with concurrent disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and (or) obsessive-compulsive disorder.3 Therefore, it is important to provide an up-to-date overview of the evidence regarding treatments currently in use, as well as guidelines based on the best available evidence. Although clinical guidelines for the treatment of TS have been recently published in other jurisdictions,46 there are variations in the availability of interventions and in clinical practices to justify the need for clinical guidelines that reflect the Canadian context. TS begins in childhood and can have a negative effect on the child's functioning as well as psychological wellbeing.7·8 Without timely intervention, this can often lead to detrimental long-term effects on social adaptation, academic success, self-image, and self-esteem. These risks are particularly important for children who have not only TS but also one or more comorbid conditions. In general, one can intervene at 3 levels: educational, psychotherapeutic, and pharmacological. It is important to emphasize that a person and their family can benefit from receiving the diagnosis and learning about the nature of the condition, including its natural course and prognosis. In most mild cases, that is sufficient to allow them to cope with the symptoms successfully. However, the clinician must be sensitive to the great variability in the tolerance of tics among affected people and families. Consequently, the decision of whether and when to move on to more active interventions, such as behavioural treatment or pharmacotherapy, depends, to a considerable extent, on the attitude and needs of patients and their families, which have to be evaluated patient by patient. It is for that reason that one cannot specify a particular frequency or severity of tics as a threshold beyond which treatment is always necessary. Instead, the treatment should be offered when the symptoms interfere with academic, vocational, or social functioning, or cause physical pain or psychological distress. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind, and to educate patients, that for most people with TS, the tics subside on their own by the end of adolescence.' Awareness of this typical natural course of tics often leads to a more conservative approach to treatment, especially when considering medications that are associated with significant adverse effects. Further, highly invasive experimental treatments, such as psychosurgery, should be avoided in patients aged 20 years and younger. Frequently, tics are less pronounced at school than at home because of the tendency to inhibit them in public, albeit at the cost of reduced attention and increased irritability. Nevertheless, tics are often experienced as disruptive and embarrassing in the school setting. There is room here for professional intervention in terms of recommending practical strategies, which often include informing teachers and classmates about the nature of tics to avoid unwarranted reprimands and teasing. Advising patients on how to handle questions about their tics is also useful and important. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,163
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2012
Routes d'admission4
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatryMême sujetObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersTravaux en français237 207