Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Impressione Globale del Paziente sul Cambiamento (PGIC)× | Scala delle Impressioni Cliniche Globali (CGI)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Psicologia clinica | Psicologia clinica |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine | 1976 | 1976 |
| Ideatore | William Guy | William Guy |
| Tipo≠ | Self-report single-item rating | Clinician-rated assessment |
| Fonte seminale | Guy, W. (1976). ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. link ↗ | Guy, W. (1976). ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. link ↗ |
| Alias≠ | PGIC, Patient Global Impression of Change Scale | CGI, CGI-S, CGI-I |
| Correlati | 4 | 4 |
| Sintesi≠ | The Patient Global Impression of Change is a single-item, seven-point rating scale asking patients to report their overall impression of change since treatment initiation. Originally published by William Guy in the ECDEU Assessment Manual in 1976, the PGIC has become a standard co-primary endpoint in clinical trials assessing treatment efficacy. The scale is endorsed by the FDA as a patient-reported outcome measure for demonstrating clinical benefit. Despite its simplicity, the PGIC captures patients' holistic perception of improvement—integrating symptom reduction, functional recovery, and subjective well-being. | The Clinical Global Impressions Scale is a clinician-administered two-part assessment developed by William Guy in the ECDEU Assessment Manual (1976) to provide rapid, global ratings of illness severity and treatment response. Part 1 (CGI-Severity) rates current severity; Part 2 (CGI-Improvement) rates change since treatment initiation. The CGI is among the most widely used global outcome measures in psychiatric research and clinical practice, prized for its brevity, interpretability, and ability to capture clinician expertise and nuanced clinical judgment. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|