Clinical reappraisal of the composite international diagnostic interview version 3.3 in Qatar's National Mental Health Study.

OBJECTIVES: Lifetime DSM-5 diagnoses generated by the lay-administered Composite International Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 (CIDI) in the World Mental Health Qatar (WMHQ) study were compared to diagnoses based on blinded clinician-administered reappraisal interviews. METHODS: Telephone follow-up interviews used the non-patient edition of the Structured Clinician Interview for DSM-5 (SCID) oversampling respondents who screened positive for five diagnoses in the CIDI: major depressive episode, mania/hypomania, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Concordance was also examined for a diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder based on a short-form versus full version of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). RESULTS: Initial CIDI prevalence estimates differed significantly from the SCID for most diagnoses ( χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 6.6-31.4, p = 0.010 < 0.001), but recalibration reduced most of these differences and led to consistent increases in individual-level concordance (AU-ROC) from 0.53-0.76 to 0.67-0.81. Recalibration of the short-form PCL-5 removed an initially significant difference in PTSD prevalence with the full PCL-5 (from χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 610.5, p < 0.001 to χ 1 2 ${\chi }_{1}^{2}$  = 2.5, p = 0.110) while also increasing AU-ROC from 0.76 to 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: Recalibration resulted in valid diagnoses of common mental disorders in the Qatar National Mental Health Survey, but with inflated prevalence estimates for some disorders that need to be considered when interpreting results.

Design and field procedures for the clinical reappraisal of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.3 in Qatar's national mental health study.

BACKGROUND: The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) has been clinically reappraised in several studies conducted mainly in the US and Europe. This report describes the methodology used to conduct one of the Middle East's largest clinical reappraisal studies. The study was carried out in conjunction with the World Mental Health Qatar-the first national psychiatric epidemiological study of common mental disorders in the country. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic consistency of core modules of the newly translated and adapted Arabic version of the CIDI 5.0 against the independent clinical diagnoses based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5). METHODS: Telephone follow-up interviews were administered by trained clinicians using the latest research edition of the SCID for DSM-5. Telephone administered interviews were key in the data collection, as the study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Overall, within 12 months, 485 interviews were completed. The response rate was 52%. Quality control monitoring documented excellent adherence of clinical interviews to the rating protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The overall methods used in this study proved to be efficient and effective. For future research, instrument cultural adaptation within the cultural context is highly recommended.

Appendicitis Secondary to Trauma following a Camel Kick: Case Report and Review of Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Independently, trauma and appendicitis are two of the most common conditions in surgical practice. Rarely, both conditions may coexist, which raises the controversy whether it is merely a coincidence or trauma may lead to acute appendicitis. Presentation of Case. We report a case of acute appendicitis after blunt abdominal trauma caused by a camel hoof kick to the abdomen in a young man and discuss the potential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms with review of the pertinent literature. CONCLUSIONS: Blunt abdominal trauma caused by a camel kick to the abdomen requires a close observation of the patients. A camel kick may increase intra-abdominal pressure and cause internal organ injury including the appendix. Therefore, acute appendicitis should be considered in differential diagnosis in any patient with abdominal pain resembling appendicitis following blunt abdominal trauma.