BJP College Seminars Series
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The British Journal of Psychiatry (2006) 188: 392. doi: 10.1192/bjp.188.4.392
© 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sharan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bharadwaj, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sharan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bharadwaj, R.

Correspondence

The Kraepelinian dichotomy

P. Sharan

Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160 012, India.

R. Bharadwaj

Department of Psychiatry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence: E-mail: r_s_bh{at}yahoo.com

McDonald et al (2005) investigated the Kraepelinian dichotomy of psychosis using brain imaging. They reported distinct grey matter volumetric deficits in patients with schizophrenia and those with psychotic bipolar I disorder but common white matter abnormalities in the two disorders.

Kraepelin distinguished dementia praecox and manic–depressive psychosis on the basis of symptomatology, course and outcome. He wrote that the basic disturbances in dementia praecox were the ‘impoverishment of those feelings and strivings which continually stoke the furnace of our will’ and ‘a loss of the internal integrity of comprehension, emotion and volition’. Furthermore, his description of manic–depressive psychosis included cases of ‘periodic and circular insanity, simple mania, melancholia and affective changes that could be regarded as rudiments of more severe disasters’ (Berner et al, 1992). This formulation is what we would today consider a spectrum concept of manic–depressive illness. A test of the Kraepelinian dichotomy would thus be better served by the use of patients with affective disorders rather than bipolar I disorder (with psychotic symptoms) as the comparator group.

The non-significant differences in grey matter between patients with bipolar I disorder and healthy volunteers could be a result of sampling bias. Recruitment of patients from voluntary support groups might have resulted in inclusion of those with less-severe illness. In addition, depression, anxiety, medical disorders (e.g. hypertension, diabetes mellitus) and seizures, which can give rise to structural abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging, were not excluded in the ‘healthy volunteers’. The mean IQ and ethnicity of patient groups and the healthy volunteers were not given. These variables are important as they may contribute to differences in brain structure among groups (Thase, 2000). Similarly, the use of spoiled gradient recall echo sequence instead of inversion recovery sequence might have led to type 2 errors in comparisons of white matter volumes between patients with schizophrenia and those with bipolar I disorder (Karson & Renshaw, 2000).

The statistical analysis used the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for differences between each patient group and the healthy volunteer group and differences between the two patient groups. Risk of type 1 errors would have been lower in a single ANCOVA (3 x 2) model.

Finally, it would be interesting to know whether ‘normalisation’ using the International Consortium for Brain Mapping data-set instead of the Talairach space would have made a difference to the results and whether some of the results were confirmed by the ‘region of interest’ methodology, which is known to be more accurate.

REFERENCES

Berner, P., Gabriel, E., Katschnig, H., et al (1992) Emil Kraepelin. In Diagnostic Criteria for Functional Psychosis, pp. 13–16. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge University Press.

Karson, C. N. & Renshaw, P. F. (2000) Principles of neuroimaging: magnetic resonance techniques. In Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (eds B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock), pp. 162–165. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

McDonald, C., Bullmore, E., Sham, P., et al (2005) Regional volume deviations of brain structure in schizophrenia and psychotic bipolar disorder. Computational morphometry study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 369 –377.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Thase, M. E. (2000) Mood disorders: neurobiology. In Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (eds B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock), pp. 1318 –1328. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sharan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bharadwaj, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sharan, P.
Right arrow Articles by Bharadwaj, R.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals