Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is the PANSS used correctly? a systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is the PANSS used correctly? a systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Is the PANSS used correctly? a systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Is the PANSS used correctly? a systematic review
2011
Overview
Background
The PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) is one of the most important rating instruments for patients with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, there is a long and ongoing debate in the psychiatric community regarding its mathematical properties.
All 30 items range from 1 to 7 leading to a minimum total score of 30, implying that the PANSS is an interval scale. For such interval scales straightforward calculation of relative changes is not appropriate. To calculate outcome criteria based on a percent change as, e.g., the widely accepted response criterion, the scale has to be transformed into a ratio scale beforehand. Recent publications have already pointed out the pitfall that ignoring the scale level (interval vs. ratio scale) leads to a set of mathematical problems, potentially resulting in erroneous results concerning the efficacy of the treatment.
Methods
A Pubmed search based on the PRISMA statement of the highest-ranked psychiatric journals (search terms \"PANSS\" and \"response\") was carried out. All articles containing percent changes were included and methods of percent change calculation were analysed.
Results
This systematic literature research shows that the majority of authors (62%) actually appear to use incorrect calculations. In most instances the method of calculation was not described in the manuscript.
Conclusions
These alarming results underline the need for standardized procedures for PANSS calculations.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,BMC
