MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1579681008 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200805

Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater (PTSD is Not Overdiagnosed)

2007· article· en· W1579681008 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Alain Brunet, Vivian Akerib, Philippe Birmes

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiquePosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Établissements canadiensVeterans Affairs CanadaSte. Anne's HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alain Brunet, PhD1, Vivian Akerib, MA2, Philippe Birmes, MD, PhD3 (Can J Psychiatry 2007;52:501-502) In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, some media experts predicted that up to 1 out of 5 New Yorkers would suffer from full-blown posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In fact, 2 months after the attacks, among a random sample of 1008 adults living in Manhattan, only 7.5% reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of acute PTSD.1 It is relatively easy these days to find instances among the media and the general public where the concept of psychological trauma is overapplied or misrepresented, giving the impression that PTSD must be rampant and therefore overdiagnosed. Despite the popular use of this term, actual prevalence rates demonstrate that PTSD is not overdiagnosed by those whose job it is to diagnose: the epidemiologists and the mental health professionals. If we consider the evolution in the field of trauma research, there are at least 2 major tendencies: on the one hand, the criteria for diagnosing PTSD have become stricter, while, on the other hand, our ability to detect and correctly assess trauma exposure and PTSD has improved, thereby leading to the identification of new, previously undiagnosed cases. The net result of these 2 tendencies is a remarkably stable rate of PTSD in the epidemiologic surveys of the last decade. Changes in the Diagnostic Criteria of PTSD The diagnostic criteria of PTSD have undergone many minor changes since they were introduced in the DSM-III (1980). With the publication of DSM-IV (1994), however, a major change was introduced: the definition of what constitutes a traumatic event shifted from a nomothetic to an idiographic one. From that point on, trauma was no longer defined as an objective event but rather as a life-threatening experience that must, in addition, be appraised by the exposed individual with fear, helplessness, or horror. In the absence of such distress, the event was no longer considered traumatic. In many instances, this change dramatically reduced the number of individuals typically considered as having been exposed to a traumatic event.2 In addition, the emergence of the social impairment criterion in the DSM-IV (for all mental disorders) decreased the prevalence rate of PTSD up to 24%, according to a recent study.3 Changes in Epidemiologic Survey Methodology Although the criteria for diagnosing PTSD have evolved toward being more restrictive, our ability to detect and assess trauma has also improved. For instance, in epidemiologic surveys, lists of potentially qualifying events (and the use of explicit definitions, as in the case of sexual abuse) to prime the memory of the participants are now routinely used, something which was not done in the earlier surveys. As a result of this and other methodological improvements, the rates of PTSD did go up. For instance, in 1987 Helzer et al4 found in the Epidemiological Catchment Area study a lifetime rate of PTSD of only 1%. Since then, however, large surveys conducted in the United States have found higher but remarkably similar rates of lifetime PTSD: 7.5% and 6.6% in 2 representative samples of the US population5'6 and a conditional risk of 9.1% among the exposed in a sample of young urban US adults.7 This stabilization of the PTSD rate in carefully designed epidemiologic surveys argues strongly against the idea that PTSD is overdiagnosed. Another example of the crucial role played by the survey methodology comes from Thompson et al.8 In a reexamination of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study (NVVRS) and the Vietnam Experience Study (VES), Thompson et al managed to reconcile the 2 studies' quite different prevalence rates (15.2% and 2.2%, respectively) by applying each study's definitions related to diagnosis. Since the NVVRS made use of multiple standardized and well-validated diagnostic instruments and used many more PTSD symptom probes than the VES, the former's statistical results were deemed more reliable. …

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,773
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,332
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · 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
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations23
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatryMême sujetPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTravaux en français237 207