Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores

  • Stefan Leucht (a1) (a2), John M. Kane (a2), Werner Kissling (a1), Johannes Hamann (a1), Eva Etschel (a3) and Rolf Engel (a3)...
Abstract
Background

Despite the widespread use of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the clinical meaning of its total score and cut-off values used to define treatment response are unclear.

Aims

To link the BPRS to Clinical Global Impression (CGI) ratings.

Method

Equipercentile linking of BPRS and CGI ratings from seven drug trials in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n=1979).

Results

‘Mildly ill’ according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a BPRS total score of 31, ‘moderately ill’ to a BPRS score of 41 and ‘markedly ill’ to a BPRS score of 53. ‘Minimally improved’ according to the CGI score was associated with percentage BPRS reductions of 24, 27 and 30% at weeks 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The corresponding numbers for a CGI rating of ‘much improved’ were 44, 53 and 58%

Conclusions

The results provide a clearer understanding of how to interpret BPRS total and percentage reduction scores in clinical trials with patients acutely ill with schizophrenia who are experiencing positive symptoms.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
PD Dr Stefan Leucht, Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Technischen Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstrasse 22, 81675 München, Germany. Tel: +49 89 4140 4249; e-mail: Stefan.Leucht@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSM–III–R). Washington, DC: APA.
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: APA.
Andreasen, N., Carpenter, W., Kane, J., et al (2005) Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 441449.
Arvanitis, L. A., Miller, B. G. & Seroquel Trial 13 Study Group (1997) Multiple fixed doses of ‘seroquel’ (quetiapine) in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: acomparison with haloperidoland placebo. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 233246.
Beasley, C. M., Tollefson, G. D., Tran, P., et al (1996) Olanzapine versus haloperidol and placebo. Acute phase results of the American double-blind olanzapine trial. Neuropsychopharmacology, 14, 111123.
Beneke, M. & Rasmus, W. (1992) ‘Clinical Global Impressions’ (ECDEU): some critical comments. Pharmacopsychiatry, 25, 171176.
Carrière, P., Bonhomme, D. & Lemperiere, T. (2000) Amisulpride has superior benefit/risk profile to haloperidol in schizophrenia: results of a multicentre, double-blind study (the Amisulpride Study Group). European Psychiatry, 15, 321329.
Cole, J. O. (1964) Phenothiazine treatment in acute schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 10, 246261.
Collegium Internationale Psychiatriae Scalarum (1996) Internationale Skalen fürPsychiatrie, 4th edn. Göttingen: Beltz Test.
Colonna, L., Saleem, P., Dondey-Nouvel, L., et al (2000) Long-term safety and efficacy of amisulpride in subchronic or chronic schizophrenia. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 1322.
Dahlke, F., Lohaus, A. & Gutzmann, H. (1992) Reliability and clinical concepts underlying global judgements in dementia: implications for clinical research. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 28, 425432.
Guy, W. (1976) Clinical Global Impressions: In ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology, pp. 218222. Revised DHEW Pub. (ADM). Rockville, MD: National Institute for Mental Health.
Hamilton, M. (1960) A rating scale of depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 23, 5662.
Haro, J. M., Kamath, S. A., Ochoa, S., et al (2003) The Clinical Global Impression–Schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107, 1623.
Hedlund, J. L. & Vieweg, B. W. (1980) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): a comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, II, 4865.
Kane, J. M., Honigfeld, G., Singer, J., et al (1988) Clozapine for the treatment-resistant schizophrenic. A double-blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 789796.
Kay, S. R. & Fiszbein, A. (1987) The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 261275.
Khan, A., Khan, S. R., Shankles, E. B., et al (2002) Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17, 281285.
Khan, A., Brodhead, A. E. & Kolts, R. L. (2004) Relative sensitivity of the Montgomery–Asberg depression rating scale, the Hamilton depression rating scale and the Clinical Global Impressions rating scale in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication analysis. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19, 157160.
Kolen, M. J. & Brennan, R. L. (1995) Test Equating: Methods and Practices. New York: Springer.
Leon, A. C., Shear, M. K., Klerman, G. L., et al (1993) A comparison of symptom determinants of patient and clinician global ratings in patients with panic disorder and depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 13, 327331.
Linn, R. L. (1993) Linking results of distinct assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 83102.
Marder, S. R. & Meibach, R. C. (1994) Risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 825835.
Möller, H. J., Boyer, P., Fleurot, O., et al (1997) Improvement of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia with amisulpride: a comparison with haloperidol. Psychopharmacology, 132, 396401.
Montgomery, S. A. & Asberg, M. (1979) Anew depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 382389.
Nierenberg, A. A. & DeCecco, L. M. (2002) Definitions of antidepressant treatment response, remission, nonresponse, partial response, and other relevant outcomes: a focus on treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62 (suppl), 59.
Overall, J. E. & Gorham, D. R. (1962) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 790812.
Peuskens, J. & Link, C. G. G. (1997) Acomparison of quetiapine and chlorpromazine in the treatment of schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 96, 265273.
Peuskens, J., Bech, P., Möller, H. J., et al (1999) Amisulpride v. risperidone in the treatment of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 88, 107117.
Price, L. R., Lurie, A. & Wilkins, C. (2001) EQUIPERCENT: A SAS program for calculating equivalent scores using the equipercentile method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 332.
Puech, A., Fleurot, O. & Rein, W. (1998) Amisulpride, an atypical antipsychotic, in the treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia: a dose-ranging study v. haloperidol. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 98, 6572.
Small, J. G., Hirsch, S. R., Arvanitis, L. A., et al (1997) Quetiapine in patients with schizophrenia. A high- and low-dose comparison with placebo. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 549557.
Wetzel, H., Grunder, G., Hillert, A., et al (1998) Amisulpride versus flupentixol in schizophrenia with predominantly positive symptomatology – a double-blind controlled study comparing a selective D-2-like antagonist to a mixed D-1-/D-2-like antagonist. Psychopharmacology, 137, 223232.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
  • ISSN: 0007-1250
  • EISSN: 1472-1465
  • URL: /core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 94 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 504 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 26th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Clinical implications of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores

  • Stefan Leucht (a1) (a2), John M. Kane (a2), Werner Kissling (a1), Johannes Hamann (a1), Eva Etschel (a3) and Rolf Engel (a3)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *