Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:01:22.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

First-rank symptoms: Past, present and future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

B. Jorge*
Affiliation:
Serviço De Psiquiatria, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal
C. Pedro Fernandes
Affiliation:
Psychiatry, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal
M. Duarte Mangas
Affiliation:
Serviço De Psiquiatria, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal
J. Carvalho
Affiliation:
Serviço De Psiquiatria, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Conceptualising Schneider’s first-rank symptoms (FRS) as a diagnostic test whose performance can be measured in terms of sensitivity and specificity involves some issues that require reflection. The first formal proposal was contained in a 1939 monograph Schneider wrote, but little is known of their prehistory. In recent years there has been renewed interest in their clinical value.

Objectives

This work aims to review the the diagnostic the evolution and diagnostic accuracy of FRS.

Methods

A non-systematic review was performed, searching Pubmed/MEDLINE for articles using the keywords “schizophrenia” and “first rank symptoms”.

Results

From the beginning of Western descriptive psychopathology in the early 19th century, symptoms have been observed later described as first-rank by Schneider. When FRS are conceived as simple clinical indicators at a low level of inference, the results of the meta-analytic estimate of their diagnostic accuracy can be considered as a valid appraisal of their performance and usefulness. However, when FRS are conceptualised from a psychopathological perspective as strange and incomprehensible experiences that cannot be reduced merely to their propositional content and require substantial expertise and skill to be properly evaluated, the meta-analytic estimates can hardly be seen as a valid evaluation of their diagnostic significance, considering that some FRS are extremely difficult to assess properly.

Conclusions

The descriptions of these symptoms present substantial temporal and geographical continuity, over two centuries and in many countries. There is contradictory information concerning the validity of FRS as a clinical indicator. Phenomenologically informed studies are needed to address this research gap.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.