Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:25:00.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Diagnosis of Depressive Syndromes and the Prediction of E.C.T. Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

M. W. P. Carney
Affiliation:
Blackpool and Fylde Hospital Group and Lancaster Moor Hospital; lately Senior Registrar, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
M. Roth
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
R. F. Garside
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Extract

The establishment of a classification of affective disorders commanding wide agreement among clinical practitioners and investigators is one of the most pressing needs of contemporary psychiatry. This group of conditions has, in recent decades, displaced schizophrenia from the centre of the clinical stage. However, despite its prominence and importance in clinical practice, the territory remains inadequately charted. There is evidence to indicate that the uncertainty about the most clear and convenient lines of demarcation within this clinical territory makes a large contribution to the unreliability of psychiatric diagnosis. Thus, in a recent enquiry (Sandifer, Pettus and Quade, 1965) into the reliability of diagnoses made in 91 first admissions to a mental hospital by ten experienced psychiatrists, it was shown that the resolution of disagreement in the areas of “psychoneurosis—affective disorder” and “psychoneurosis—personality disorder” would have raised the overall reliability of diagnosis in this enquiry from 57 per cent. to 83 per cent.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1965 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burt, C. (1952). Brit. J. Psychol. Stat. Sec., 5, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1941). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Foulds, G. A. (1960). J. ment. Sci., 106, 1394.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. L. (1964). Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 10, 572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. (1960). J. Neurol. Neurosurg. and Psychiat., 23, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, M. and White, J. (1959). J. ment. Sci., 105, 985.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. (1960). Ibid., 106, 1031.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. F. (1953). J. Neurol. Neurosurg. and Psychiat., 16, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalinowsky, L. B., Hoch, P. H., and Grant, B. (1961). Somatic Treatments in Psychiatry. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
Kiloh, L. G., Ball, J. R. B., and Garside, R. F. (1962). Brit. med. J., 1, 1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiloh, L. G., Ball, J. R. B., and Garside, R. F. (1963). Brit. J. Psychiat., 109, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretsghmer, E. (1926). Körperbau und Charakter. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Plackett, R. L. (1962). J. roy. Stat. Soc. B, 24, 162.Google Scholar
Rees, W. L. (1944). Proc. roy. Soc. Med., 37, 635.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. M. (1959). J. ment. Sci., 105, 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J. T. (1962). Brit. J. Psychiat., 108, 624.Google Scholar
Roth, M. (1959). Canad. psychiat. Ass. J. (Suppl.), 4, 532.Google Scholar
Roth, M. and Rosie, J. (1953). J. ment. Sci., 99, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, M., Kay, D. W. K., Shaw, J., and Green, J. (1957). EEG clin. Neurophysiol., 9, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandifer, M. G., Pettus, C., and Quade, D. (1965). J. nerv. ment. Dis. In press.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods. Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, G. H. (1956). The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.