Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:31:40.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

La Entrevista Neuropsiquiátrica Internacional Reducida (MINI). Una entrevista diagnóstica estructurada breve: fiabilidad y validez según la CIDI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Y. Lecrubier ,
D.V. Sheehan ,
E. Weiller ,
P. Amorim ,
I. Bonora ,
K. Harnett Sheehan ,
J. Janavs  and
G.C. Dunbar
Y. Lecrubier
Affiliation:
INSERM U302, Hospital de la Salpêtrière, 47, boulevard de I'Hôpital, 75651Paris Cedex 13, Francia
D.V. Sheehan
Affiliation:
Colegio de Medicina de la Universidad del Sur de Florida, 3515 E. Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, FL, EE UU
E. Weiller
Affiliation:
INSERM U302, Hospital de la Salpêtrière, 47, boulevard de I'Hôpital, 75651Paris Cedex 13, Francia
P. Amorim
Affiliation:
INSERM U302, Hospital de la Salpêtrière, 47, boulevard de I'Hôpital, 75651Paris Cedex 13, Francia
I. Bonora
Affiliation:
INSERM U302, Hospital de la Salpêtrière, 47, boulevard de I'Hôpital, 75651Paris Cedex 13, Francia
K. Harnett Sheehan
Affiliation:
Colegio de Medicina de la Universidad del Sur de Florida, 3515 E. Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, FL, EE UU
J. Janavs
Affiliation:
Colegio de Medicina de la Universidad del Sur de Florida, 3515 E. Fletcher Avenue, Tampa, FL, EE UU
G.C. Dunbar
Affiliation:
SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Reigate, Surrey, Reino Unido
Get access

Resumen

La Entrevista Neuropsiquiátrica Internacional Reducida (MINI) es una entrevista diagnóstica estructurada (EDE) breve desarrollada en Francia y en los Estados Unidos para explorar 17 trastornos según los criterios diagnósticos del Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico (DSM) III-R. La MINI está completamente estructurada para permitir su administratión por entrevistadores no especializados. Para mantener su brevedad, se centra en la existencia de trastornos actuales. Para cada trastorno, una o dos preguntas de detectión descartan el diagnóstico cuando reciben una respuesta negativa. Los sondeos para la gravedad, la discapacidad o los síntomas con explicación médica no se exploran síntoma por síntoma. Dos artículos conjuntos presentan la fiabilidad interevaluador y test-retest y la validez de la MINI frente a la Entrevista Diagnóstica Internacional Compuesta (CIDI) (en este artículo) y la Entrevista Clínica Estructurada para el DSM III-R - Pacientes (SCID-P) (artículo adjunto). Se administró la MINI y la CIDI como patrón de referencia a 346 pacientes (296 psiquiátricos y 50 no psiquiátricos). Dos investigadores entrevistaron a dos grupos de 42 sujetos y volvieron a hacerlo posteriormente en un plazo de dos días. Los entrevistadores habían sido adiestrados en el uso de ambos instrumentos. La duratión media de la entrevista fue de 21 min con la MINI y de 92 min para las secciones correspondientes de la CIDI. El coeficiente kappa, la sensibilidad y la especificidad fueron buenos o muy buenos para todos los diagnósticos, con la exceptión del trastorno por ansiedad generalizada (TAG) (kappa = 0,36), la agorafobia (sensibilidad = 0,59) y la bulimia (kappa = 0,53). Las fiabilidades interevaluador y test-retest fueron buenas. Se identificaron las razones principales para las discrepancias. La MINI proporcionaba diagnósticos fiables del DSM III-R en un marco temporal breve. El estudio permitió mejoras en las formulaciones para el TAG y la agorafobia en la versión actual para DSM IV de la MINI.

Keywords

entrevista diagnóstica estructuradadiagnóstico psiquiátricoMINI
Type
Artículo original
Information
European Psychiatry (Ed. Española) , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 13 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 1998

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

Bibliografia

Broadhead, WELeon, ACWeissman, MMBarret, JE et al. Development and validation of the SDDS-PC screen for multiple mental disorders in primary care. Arch Fam Med 1995; 4: 211–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endicott, JSpitzer, RL. A diagnostic interview: the schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1978; 35: 837–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, DP. The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionaire. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Goldberg, DPWilliams, P. A Users Guide to the General Health Questionnaire: GHQ. Windsor: NFER-Nelson, 1988.Google Scholar
Goldberg, DPLecrubier, Y. Form and frequency of mental disorders across centres. In: Üstün, TBSartorius, N, eds. Mental Illness in General Health Care. An International Study. Chichester: Wiley Publishers, 1995; 323-34.Google Scholar
Helzer, JECanino, GJHwu, HGBland, RC et al. Alcoholism: a cross-national comparison of population surveys with the diagnostic interview schedule. In: Rose, RMBarrett, JE, eds. Alcoholism: Origins and Outcome. New York: Raven Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Kessler, IGCleary, PDBurke, JJ. Psychiatric disorders in primary care: results of a follow-up study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42: 583-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutchins, HKirk, SA. The reliability of DSM-III: a critical review. Soc Work Res Abstr 1986; 4: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magruder-Habid, KZung, WWKFuessner, JR. Improving physicians recognition and treatment of depression in general medical care: results of randomized clinical trial. Med Care 1990; 28: 239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannuzza, SFyer, AJMartin, LYGallops, MS et al. Reliability of anxiety assessment: diagnostic agreement. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989; 46: 1093-101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffic, HPaykel, ES. Depression in medical in-patients. Brit J Psychiatry 1975; 126: 346–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, ACWilliams, TA. Depression in ambulatory medical patients: prevalence by self-report questionnaire and recognition by nonpsychiatric physicians. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1989; 37: 999–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormel, JKoeter, MWvan den Brink, Wvan de Willige, G. Recognition management and course of anxiety and depression in general practice. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48: 700-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regier, DABoyd, JHRae, DSBurke, JD et al. One month prevalence of psychiatric disorders in five epidemiologic catchment area sites. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987; 44: 817–20.Google Scholar
Riskind, JHBeck, ATBerchick, RJBrown, GSteer, RA. Reliability of DSM-III diagnoses for major depression and generalized anxiety disorder using the structured clinical interview for DSM-III. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987; 44: 817–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robin, LN. The validity of psychiatric diagnosis. In: American Psychopathological Association Series, New York, Raven Press, 1989; 263–278.Google Scholar
Sartorius, NKaelber, CTCooper, JERoper, MT et al, on behalf of all participating investigators: Progress toward achieving a common language in psychiatry. Results from the field trial of the clinical guidelines accompanying the WHO Clasification of mental and behavioral disorders in ICD-10. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993a; 50: 115-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartorius, NÜstün, TB, Costa e Silva, JAGoldberg, Y et al. An international study of psychological problems in primary care. Preliminary report from the World Health Organization. Collaborative project on psychological problems in general health care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993b; 50: 814-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, DVLecrubier, YSheehan, H et al. The Validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) according to the SCID-P and its reliability. Eur Psychiatry 1997: 5: 232-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, RLForman, JBWNee, J. DSM III field trials. Initial interrater diagnostic reliability. Am J Psychiatry 1979; 136: 815-7.Google ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, RLWilliams, JBWGibbon, MFirst, MB. Structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R-Patient Version (SCIP-P 6/1/88). New York, Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1988.Google Scholar
Spitzet, RLWilliams, JBWGibbon, MFirst, MB. The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R I. History, rationale and description. Arch Psychiatry 1992; 49: 624-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, RLWilliams, JBWKroenke, K et al. The PRIME- MD 1000 study: validation of a new system for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. Presented at the Seventh Annual NIMH International Research Conference On Mental Health Problems in the General Health Section; Sept. 21, 1993. McLean VA.Google Scholar
Surtees, PGSashidharen, SP. Psychiatric morbidity in two matched community samples: a comparison of rates and risks in Edinburgh and St. Louis. J Affective Disorders 1986; 10: 101–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Üstün, TBvon Korff, M. Primary mental health services: access and provision of care. In: Üntün, TBSartorius, N, eds. Mental Illness in General Health Care. An International Study. Wiley, 1995; 345-60.Google Scholar
Weissman, MMOfson, MLeon, ACBroadhead, WE et al. Brief Diagnostic Interviews (SDDS-PFC) for multiple mental disorders in primary care. A pilot study. Arch Fam Med 1995; 4: 220-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, JBWGibbon, MFirst, MBSpitzer, RL et al. The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). II: Multisite test-retest reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49: 630-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittchen, HURobins, LNCottler, LB et al. Cross-cultural feasibility, reliability and sources of variance of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Br J Psychiatry 1992; 259: 645–53.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, WHO. The composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI). Geneva, WHO, 1990.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, WHO. Schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (SCAN). Geneva, WHO, 1992.Google Scholar
Zung, WWKMagill, MMoore, JT et al. Recognition and treatment of depression in a family medical practice. J Clin Psychiatry 1983; 44: 3–6Google Scholar