Comorbid XXXX among @entity1 with @entity308 .

@entity1 @entity308 @entity14256 @entity146 @entity1316 @entity1726 @entity1314 @entity3119
PURPOSE: To investigate the @entity1314 ( @entity1314 ) diagnosed in @entity1 with @entity308 . MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included a cross-sectional analysis, and was an extension of the Thai Study of @entity1316 (THAISAD) project. Eighty-five outpatients with @entity308 were interviewed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Inventory to assess for @entity308 , in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of @entity146 , Fourth Edition, Text Revision and using the Thai version of the Structured Clinical Interview for @entity1314 to assess for @entity1726 . RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of the @entity1 had at least one @entity1726 , 40% had one @entity1726 and 60% had two or more @entity1314 (mixed cluster). The most common @entity1314 found were borderline @entity1726 (20%) and @entity3119 (10.6%), while the occurrence of avoidant @entity1726 was low when compared to the findings of previous, related studies. Among the mixed cluster, cluster A combined with cluster C was the common mix. Both @entity14256 and double @entity308 were found to have a higher proportion of @entity1314 than @entity308 (85.7% versus 76.1%). Dependent @entity1726 was found to be less common in this study than in previous studies, including those carried out in Asia. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of @entity1314 among those with @entity308 varied, and only borderline @entity1726 seems to be consistently high within and across cultures. Mixed cluster plays a prominent role in @entity308 , so more attention should be paid to @entity1 in this category.
