Validation of the Catatonia Quick Screen in the Original Bush‐Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Cohort

INTRODUCTION: Delayed catatonia diagnosis may cause preventable harm. The 4-item Catatonia Quick Screen (CQS) allows rapid screening, but its specificity requires evaluation. We assessed CQS sensitivity and specificity using the original Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) cohort. METHODS: Retrospective reanalysis of data from 215 consecutive inpatient psychiatric admissions. CQS classifications were compared against BFCRS, DSM-5-TR, and ICD-11 criteria. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated via Clopper-Pearson exact methods, treating the eight single-sign patients conservatively as false positives. RESULTS: All 15 catatonia cases screened positive (true positives). The CQS demonstrated 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.2% to 100%), 96.0% specificity (95% CI: 92.3% to 98.3%), 65.2% positive predictive value (95% CI: 42.7% to 83.6%), and 100% negative predictive value (95% CI: 98.1% to 100%). CONCLUSION: The CQS showed excellent sensitivity and high specificity in this psychiatric cohort. It serves as a rapid, low-burden screening tool to accelerate clinical recognition, though positive results require formal diagnostic confirmation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Published
2026-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.70135
Primary Topic
Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validation of the Catatonia Quick Screen in the Original Bush‐Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Cohort

James Luccarelli, Mark Kalinich, Joshua R. Smith, Stephan Heckers et al.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
article

Validation of the Catatonia Quick Screen in the Original Bush‐Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Cohort

James Luccarelli, Mark Kalinich, Joshua R. Smith, Stephan Heckers, Jonathan Rogers, Jo Ellen Wilson, Andrew Francis
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Delayed catatonia diagnosis may cause preventable harm. The 4-item Catatonia Quick Screen (CQS) allows rapid screening, but its specificity requires evaluation. We assessed CQS sensitivity and specificity using the original Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) cohort. METHODS: Retrospective reanalysis of data from 215 consecutive inpatient psychiatric admissions. CQS classifications were compared against BFCRS, DSM-5-TR, and ICD-11 criteria. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated via Clopper-Pearson exact methods, treating the eight single-sign patients conservatively as false positives. RESULTS: All 15 catatonia cases screened positive (true positives). The CQS demonstrated 100% sensitivity (95% CI: 78.2% to 100%), 96.0% specificity (95% CI: 92.3% to 98.3%), 65.2% positive predictive value (95% CI: 42.7% to 83.6%), and 100% negative predictive value (95% CI: 98.1% to 100%). CONCLUSION: The CQS showed excellent sensitivity and high specificity in this psychiatric cohort. It serves as a rapid, low-burden screening tool to accelerate clinical recognition, though positive results require formal diagnostic confirmation.

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Pennsylvania State University (US), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US), Harvard University (US), Vanderbilt University (US), John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (US), Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (US), National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB), University College London (GB), Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.