Reply to the Letter by Wu Et Al. Entitled ‘care and Prudence As Main Directive in Clinical Research on Neurosurgical Intervention for Schizophrenia'

Bomin Sun,Wei Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000368272

IF: 1.643

2014-01-01

Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery

Abstract:ing scale, considering the convenience in the clinical use in patients with refractory schizophrenia. In the last paragraph, Wu et al. mentioned that the Chinese government had already banned the use of neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders in 2008. This is a misreading of the policy in our country. The Chinese government restricted the use of neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders in 2008. Stricter inclusion criteria were demanded for neurosurgical interventions. Neurosurgical treatment for psychiatric disorders was only allowed in some large hospitals and should be performed by well-trained neurosurgeons. The government requested that all hospitals doing surgery for psychiatric disorders must do so under the strict supervision of the Ethics Committee and should report to the government. Capsulotomy is considered as a complementary treatment for medicinerefractory schizophrenia patients, and the inclusion criteria must be strictly followed to avoid complications. We thank Wu et al. for their remarks [1] on our article [2] . Our study is a retrospective one including 116 refractory patients with schizophrenia. Capsulotomy has been proven to be an optional procedure for the treatment of refractory schizophrenia [3] . As a retrospective study, a relatively large sample is desirable. We noticed that some scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale were out of the range of the items. The fact is that a few of the items in a few patients were not evaluated because of the inclusion of the patients, and these items were scored as 0. Since most of the information was gathered, the data of the patients were still useful and therefore included. The bias was acceptable because of the larger sample. As Wu et al. mentioned, we used the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity score as an evaluation tool in the inclusion criteria. We changed the CGI Improvement rating scale from a 7-point to a 5-point ratPublished online: November 5, 2014