Vermont CFIDS Association: Submission for DSM-5 public review process

April 9, 2010 by

Vermont CFIDS Association: Submission for DSM-5 public review process

Post #30 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-EI

Submissions

Patient organisations, professionals and advocates submitting comments in the DSM-5 draft proposal review process are invited to provide copies of their submissions for collation on this page: http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

Vermont CFIDS Association

First Do No Harm

[…]

The following partial pre-release draft letter speaks eloquently for this issue, and can be shared, adapted, and/or sent to the DSM-5 Website.

Rik Carlson

(We) are deeply concerned by the American Psychiatric Association’s possible reclassification of CFS as a somatoform disorder in DSM-5.

Researchers at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have documented the physiological and pathophysiological underpinnings of this illness. The CDC, under the leadership of Julie Gerberding, launched a multi-million-dollar campaign within the past few years to underscore that CFS is a multi-system disorder which can and should be treated as such.

Based upon the numerous, peer-reviewed studies that have linked CFS to infection and multiple organ systems abnormalities, classifying CFS as a Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder seems unreasonable and unwarranted.

As estimated and communicated to you by the IACFS/ME: Over the past 25 years, 2,000 peer-reviewed CFS studies have been published. The data support a multifactorial condition characterized by disturbances in HPA function, upregulated antiviral pathways in the immune system, and genetic abnormalities. Unlike clinical anxiety and depression, psychotropics are generally ineffective for CFS and standard medical advice to exercise and rest or resume activities often lead to symptom worsening. In contrast to clinical depression, motivation is much less affected in CFS and the desire to be active remains intact.

In the past, the absence of a documentable, medical explanation has relegated other illnesses to a psychiatric diagnosis. Illnesses given psychiatric diagnoses out of ignorance are later given more accurate, medical diagnoses with additional scientific research. Surely, you do not wish to demean the field of psychiatry by repeating the errors of psychiatry’s past.

We are further concerned that the reclassification of CFS as a somatoform disorder in the DSM-5 will result in decreased care of CFS patients. The CDC’s Chronic Fatigue Syndrome educational programs for physicians explicitly suggest the management of CFS by primary care physicians with the suggestion of a psychiatric consult if the patient manifests appropriate symptoms. The reclassification of CFS as a somatoform disorder in the DSM-5 will create confusion for many practitioners. The confusion thereby created will demean the illness, and the willingness of some practitioners to treat it. Moreover, the listing of CFS as a somatoform disorder may impact the ability of CFS patients to receive reimbursement of their treatment costs resulting in a loss of treatment and benefits.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-V, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

US, UK and international patient organisation submissions to DSM-5 draft proposals

March 26, 2010 by

US, UK and international patient organisation submissions to DSM-5 draft proposals

Post #29 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Ex

The DSM-5 public review period closes on 20 April – that’s less than four weeks away.

Patient representation organisations, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, patient advocates and other stakeholders can register online at www.dsm5.org to submit responses.

US patient organisation submissions:

CFSIDS: The March issue of CFIDSLink-e-News reports that the CFIDS Association of America is seeking input from outside experts into the DSM-5 public review process. Their notice can be read here:
http://www.cfids.org/archives/2006-2010-cfidslink/march-2010.asp#advocacy

WPI: The Whittemore Peterson Institute has announced on its Facebook site that it intends to submit a response:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Whittemore-Peterson-Institute/154801179671

International patient organisation submissions:

IACFSME: The IACFSME has issued an alert for international CFS and ME clinicians, researchers and professionals and has published a copy of the organisation’s own submission in the DSM-5 public review process. Their notice and submission can be read here: http://www.iacfsme.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

ESME: ESME (International Society for ME) has stated on its Facebook site that its Think Tank panel members will submit a response which will be posted on ESME’s website and on ESME’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ESME-European-Society-for-ME/326113349124

If readers are aware of other US organisations, international organisations or professionals who have stated that they intend to submit responses, please let me know as I am collating these on my site.

UK patient organisation submissions:

On 4 March, I contacted senior personnel of seven national UK patient and research organisations. All were sent key links and documents relevant to the DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group proposals. (These organisations had also been sent selected DSM revision related material during the course of the past twelve months so all will have been aware of the impending release of draft proposals for DSM-5.)

They were all asked if they would clarify whether they intended to submit a response to the DSM-5 draft proposals for revision of DSM-IV categories currently classified under “Somatoform Disorders” and if so, whether they intended to publish their submission.

Those organisations which had not responded by 22 March were contacted again. These are the replies so far to my enquiries:

The Young ME Sufferers Trust: No reply received.

AYME: No reply received.

Invest in ME: Invest in ME has confirmed that it does intend to submit a response and that it will be publishing its response.

ME Research UK: Neil Abbott has said that it is uncertain whether resources will run to producing a response, but if a response is put together on behalf of MERUK, then this would be made publicly available.

Action for M.E.: On 25 March, in a telephone conversation, Action for M.E.’s Policy Officer was unable to confirm what Action for M.E.’s intentions are. The Policy Officer was asked to follow this up with Sir Peter Spencer (CEO) and Heather Walker (Communications Manager) since neither had responded to my email enquiries.

Later in the day, Action for M.E. posted a holding statement from its CEO, Sir Peter Spencer, on its Facebook Wall ( http://www.facebook.com/actionforme ) stating that:

“Action for M.E. will respond to the American consultation exercise before the 20th April.

“We will publish our considered response on our website when it has been submitted to the DSM-5 Task force.

“Action for M.E ‘s position is that M.E./CFS is a long-term and disabling physical illness. We accept the WHO classification in ICD 10 G93.3 that M.E. is a neurological disorder.

“We will oppose any attempt to classify CFS/M.E. as a psychiatric disorder either explicitly or implicitly.”

25% ME Group: The 25% ME Group has published a 12 page “Submission re: DSM-V and ME/CFS”, compiled by Professor Malcolm Hooper and Margaret Williams for submission by The 25% ME Group, dated 20 March 2010:
http://www.25megroup.org/News/DSM-V%20submission.doc

The ME Association: Neil Riley, Chair of the ME Association Board of Trustees, provided me with the following information:

That a response had already been submitted to the DSM-5 on 11 February.
That the response was submitted not by the ME Association but by Dr Ellen Goudsmit, PhD.
That the ME Association endorses Dr Goudsmit’s submission.
That the ME Association “had not thought of publishing it and wanted to see what the final proposals for the revision of the DSM categories will be but [Mr Riley] can confirm that the main argument put forward was that CFS should be an exclusion.”

In response to a request for further clarification, Mr Riley wrote:

“As you are aware the DSM-5 draft proposals relate to proposed psychiatric categories and this is a specialised field for which professional advice was best sought. As you know CFS and ME are not in the current draft for DSM-5. A comment was submitted related to another disorder (CSSD) which may be considered by some clinicians as an additional diagnosis on the axis e.g. affecting outcome of CFS. This was not a response to the text on CFS but challenged the robustness of a proposed psychiatric disorder.”

“The current text in the draft ‘clarifies that a diagnosis of CSSD is inappropriate in the presence of only unexplained medical symptoms. Similarly, in conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, CSSD should not be coded unless the other criterion (criterion B-attributions, etc) is present.’ Without diagnostic tests to determine whether attributions are correct (cf criterion B), our recommendation is that to avoid confusion, CFS should be an exclusion.”

Mr Riley added:

“If a future draft mentions CFS, a formal response on behalf of the MEA is justified and will be published in full online.”

Other than the comments contained in Mr Riley’s responses to me earlier this month, the ME Association has been silent on the DSM-5 revision process and its position on the proposals of the Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group and whether it had intended to submit a response, as an organisation, on behalf of its members.

Mr Riley’s response indicates that the ME Association does not plan to publish a copy of the response which it says it is endorsing, in order to fully inform its membership and the wider ME community of its position on the DSM-5 proposals.

If you find this unacceptable, please advise the Board of Trustees.

In June 2009, the ME Association published, on its website only, a “Summary Report” on the CISSD Project* which had been co-ordinated by Dr Richard Sykes, PhD. between 2003 and 2007. This report drew on the content of the December 2007 Final Report on the CISSD Project handed to the project’s Administrators, Action for M.E. on completion of the project.

The ME Association has published no comment or opinion on the aims and objectives of the project, itself, the membership of its workgroup, the content and recommendations contained in the Review paper published by the project’s leads, Kroenke, Sharpe and Sykes in mid 2007, or on the “Summary Report” provided to it by Dr Sykes, either at the time that it placed this document on its website, last June, nor since.

The project’s UK chair was Professor Michael Sharpe.

I will update when I have heard from the remaining two organisations.

If readers are aware of other UK organisations and professionals who are intending to make a submission, please let me know.

 

Related material:

The DSM-5 proposal is that Somatoform Disorders, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition (PFAMC) and Factitious Disorders should be combined under a common rubric entitled “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and for a new disorder – “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)”.

The DSM-5 public review period runs from 10 February to 20 April. Members of the public, patient representation organisations, professionals and other end users can submit responses, online.

Please take this opportunity to comment and to alert and encourage professionals and international patient organisations to participate.

Proposed Draft Revisions to DSM Disorders and Criteria are published here on the APA’s relaunched DSM5.org website: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Somatoform Disorders:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

Proposed new DSM-5 category: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Two Key PDF documents are associated with proposals:

PDF A] Somatic Symptom Disorders Introduction DRAFT 1/29/10
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Somatic/APA%20Somatic%20Symptom%20Disorders%20description%20January29%202010.pdf

PDF B] Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms DRAFT 1/29/10
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Somatic/APA%20DSM%20Validity%20Propositions%201-29-2010.pdf

*Review paper: CISSD Project leads Kroenke K, Sharpe M, Sykes R: Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations. Psychosomatics 2007 Jul Aug;48(4):277-85. FREE Full Text: http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/277

18 Proposals submitted by Dr Richard Sykes to WHO ICD Update and Revision Platform, Topical Advisory Group – Mental Health (TAGMH): https://extranet.who.int/icdrevision/GroupPage.aspx?gcode=104

The paper: Kroenke K: Somatoform disorders and recent diagnostic controversies. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2007 Dec;30(4):593-619: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17938036  contains the caveat:

“Although the CISSD is an ad hoc group that includes many international experts on somatoform disorders, it was neither appointed nor sanctioned by the APA or WHO, the organizations authorized to approve revisions of DSM and ICD, respectively. As such, the CISSD recommendations should be considered advisory rather than official. Also, there were some suggestions for which the CISSD achieved near consensus but other issues where opinions diverged considerably.”

——————

Note: An unpublished paper refered to on the DSM-5 site at this URL under “Rationale”

Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder [Rationale Tab]
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

“A key issue is whether the guidelines for CSSD describe a valid construct and can be used reliably. A recent systematic review (Lowe, submitted for publication) shows that of all diagnostic proposals, only Somatic Symptom Disorder reflects all dimensions of current biopsychosocial models of somatization (construct validity) and goes beyond somatic symptom counts by including psychological and behavioral symptoms that are specific to somatization (descriptive validity). Predictive validity of most of the diagnostic proposals has not yet been investigated.”

is thought to be this paper currently “In Press” on the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, for which DSM-5 SDD Work Group member, Frances Creed, is a co-editor. Access to full paper requires subscription or pay per paper:

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Towards positive diagnostic criteria: A systematic review of somatoform disorder diagnoses and suggestions for future classification
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 15 March 2010
Katharina Voigt, Annabel Nagel, Björn Meyer, Gernot Langs, Christoph Braukhaus, Bernd Löwe
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.015
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (183 KB)

Abstract
http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00020-6/abstract

Towards positive diagnostic criteria: A systematic review of somatoform disorder diagnoses and suggestions for future classification

Katharina Voigta 1, Annabel Nagel a1, Björn Meyer a, Gernot Langs b, Christoph Braukhaus b, Bernd Löwe a
Received 1 November 2009; received in revised form 12 January 2010; accepted 14 January 2010. published online 15 March 2010. Corrected Proof

Abstract

Objectives
The classification of somatoform disorders is currently being revised in order to improve its validity for the DSM-V and ICD-11. In this article, we compare the validity and clinical utility of current and several new diagnostic proposals of those somatoform disorders that focus on medically unexplained somatic symptoms.

Methods
We searched the Medline, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases, as well as relevant reference lists. We included review papers and original articles on the subject of somatoform classification in general, subtypes of validity of the diagnoses, or single diagnostic criteria.

Results
Of all diagnostic proposals, only complex somatic symptom disorder and the Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) example criteria reflect all dimensions of current biopsychosocial models of somatization (construct validity) and go beyond somatic symptom counts by including psychological and behavioral symptoms that are specific to somatization (descriptive validity). Predictive validity of most of the diagnostic proposals has not yet been investigated. However, the number of somatic symptoms has been found to be a strong predictor of disability. Some evidence indicates that psychological symptoms can predict disease course and treatment outcome (e.g., therapeutic modification of catastrophizing is associated with positive outcome). Lengthy symptom lists, the requirement of lifetime symptom report (as in abridged somatization), complicated symptom patterns (as in current somatization disorder), and imprecise definitions of diagnostic procedures (e.g., missing symptom threshold in complex somatic symptom disorder) reduce clinical utility.

Conclusion
Results from the reviewed studies suggest that, of all current and new diagnostic suggestions, complex somatic symptom disorder and the CISSD definition appear to have advantages regarding validity and clinical utility. The integration of psychological and behavioral criteria could enhance construct and descriptive validity, and confers prospectively relevant treatment implications. The incorporation of a dimensional approach that reflects both somatic and psychological symptom severity also has the potential to improve predictive validity and clinical utility.

Keywords: Classification, Diagnosis, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, International Classification of Diseases, Somatoform disorders, Validation studies as topic

a Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg-Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
b Medical and Psychosomatic Hospital Bad Bramstedt, Bad Bramstedt, Germany
Corresponding author. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 40 7410 59733; fax: +49 40 7410 54975.
1 Both authors contributed equally to this paper.
PII: S0022-3999(10)00020-6
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.015

Compiled by Suzy Chapman

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-V, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

Notice from IACFSME: DSM-5 May Include CFS as a Psychiatric Diagnosis

March 25, 2010 by

Notice from IACFSME: DSM-5 May Include CFS as a Psychiatric Diagnosis and submission in DSM-5 public review process

Post #28 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-En

Notice From IACFSME   http://www.iacfsme.org/

International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

DSM-5 May Include CFS as a Psychiatric Diagnosis

March 25, 2010

Important Alert to the CFS/ME Community:

The DSM-5 Task Force of the American Psychiatric Association is asking for public comment to their proposed DSM-5 manual of psychiatric diagnoses scheduled for release in 2013. We are concerned about the possibility of CFS/ME being classified as a psychiatric disorder, based on comments made in their Work Group on somatoform disorders (see letter below). Of course, such an action would be a major setback in our ongoing efforts to legitimize and increase recognition of the illness.

We urge you to submit your comments about this disturbing possibility to the DSM-5 Task Force ( www.dsm5.org ). You only need to register on this website to submit your comments. (Once you have a login, click on Proposed Revisions, and then Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder. At the bottom of page is a section for public comments.) Comments written from the perspective of a working professional (researcher, clinician, educator) will have the most influence.

Comments must be submitted by April 20 th.

Thank you.

Fred

Fred Friedberg, PhD
President
IACFS/ME

Letter To the DSM-5 Task Force:

On behalf of the board of directors and the membership of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (IACSF/ME), I would like to express my deep concern about the possible reclassification of CFS as a somatoform disorder in DSM-5. Although the proposed new category of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) appears reasonable, we are concerned about CFS, a complex illness condition, becoming a subtype of CSSD or a distinct stand alone psychiatric diagnosis. We base our concern on comments by Dr Simon Wessely (DSM-5 Work Group; September 6-8, 2006) who concluded that “we should accept the existence …of functional somatic symptoms/ syndromes …[apart from depression and anxiety] and respect the integrity of fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, and their cultural variants.” This comment suggests the possibility of a new DSM-5 somatoform diagnosis that subsumes CFS as one manifestation or subcategory.

It is the position of the IACFS/ME that placing CFS in the new category of CSSD would not be reasonable based upon the body of scientific evidence and the current understanding of this disease.

The classification of CFS as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM-5 ignores the accumulating biomedical evidence for the underpinnings of CFS in the domains of immunology, virology, genetics, and neuroendocrinology. Over the past 25 years, 2,000 peer review CFS studies have been published. The data support a multifactorial condition characterized by disturbances in HPA function, upregulated antiviral pathways in the immune system, and genetic abnormalities. Unlike clinical anxiety and depression, psychotropics are generally ineffective for CFS and standard medical advice to exercise and rest or resume activities often leads to symptom worsening. In contrast to clinical depression, motivation is much less affected in CFS and the desire to be active remains intact. Furthermore, large differences in gene expression have been recently found between CFS and endogenous depression (Zhang et al., 2009)

Although biomedical research to elucidate the mechanisms of CFS is a work in progress, the medical uncertainties surrounding CFS should not be used as justification to classify it as a psychiatric illness. As stated by Ricardo Araya MD: “The absence of a medical explanation [for an illness] should not confer automatic psychiatric labeling (Sept.6-8, 2006; Somatic Presentations of Mental Disorders; DSM-5 Work Group).”

With respect to DSM-5, we support a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Allen Francis (2010), chair of the DSM-IV task force, who stated that any new DSM diagnosis should be based on “a careful risk-benefit analysis that includes ….a consideration of all the potential unintended consequences (p. 492)”. The likely unintended consequences of a CFS diagnosis in the new DSM will be increased stigmatization and even lower levels of recognition by primary care physicians and the medical community in general. As a result, we believe such an action would be counterproductive to our ongoing efforts to educate physicians about the assessment and clinical care of these patients.

The IACFS/ME is an organization of more than 500 biomedical and behavioral professionals whose mission is to promote, stimulate, and coordinate the exchange of ideas related to CFS research, patient care, and treatment. We support scientific advocacy efforts for increased research funding. We also support public health policy initiatives to increase the recognition and reduce the stigmatization that continues to plague these debilitated and medically underserved patients.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Fred Friedberg, PhD
President
IACFS/ME
www.iacfsme.org  

 

Submissions by US patient organisations

The March issue of CFIDSLink-e-News reports that the CFIDS Association of America is seeking input from outside experts into the DSM-5 public review process.

The Whittemore Peterson Institute has announced on its Facebook site that it intends to submit a response.

Submissions by UK patient organisations

On 4 March, I contacted seven national UK organisations.  I will update on responses received, so far, in the next couple of days. The following UK patient representative and research organisations have been contacted:

Action for M.E.
ME Association
AYME
The Young ME Sufferers Trust
Invest in ME
The 25% ME Group
ME Research UK

The DSM-5 public review period runs from 10 February to 20 April 2010. Members of the public, patient representation organisations, professionals and other end users can submit responses, online.

Please take this opportunity to comment and to alert and encourage professionals and international patient organisations to participate in the DSM-5 public review process. 

If the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group were to be approved there will be medical, social and economic implications to the detriment of all patient populations – especially those bundled by many psychiatrists under the so-called “Functional Somatic Syndromes” (FSS) and “Medically Unexplained Syndromes” (MUS) umbrellas, under which they include CFS, ME, FM, IBS, CI, CS, chronic Lyme disease, GWS and others.

Register here: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Registration.aspx

Related information:

[1] APA’s new DSM-5 Development webpages: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

[2] Somatoform Disorders: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

[3] Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD):
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

[4] Key documents:

     PDF Somatic Symptom Disorders Introduction DRAFT 1/29/10

     PDF Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms DRAFT 1/29/10

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CISSD Project, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-V, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

New papers: Journal of Psychosomatic Research March 10 edition and In Press

March 23, 2010 by

New papers: Journal of Psychosomatic Research March 10 edition and In Press

Post #27 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Dv

At the time of writing, the co-editor of Journal of Psychosomatic Research is Francis Creed.  Professor Creed is a member of the APA’s DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Work Group and had been a member of the Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) Project. (See Footnotes [1] and [2])

There are currently a number of new papers and In Press papers on the website of Journal of Psychosomatic Research on “Chronic fatigue syndrome” and the so-called “functional somatic syndromes (FSS)”; fibromyalgia (which is referred to in the paper as “chronic widespread pain”); irritable bowel syndrome; so-called “medically unexplained somatic symptoms”; somatoform disorders; the proposed new DSM-5 category Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder and the Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) example criteria (Table 2).

Image Source: Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, Nevada, November ‘09 Annual Meeting slide presentation, Francis Creed, MD, FRCP: Can We Now Explain Medically Unexplained Symptoms? See this posting for slide presentation

There is a new MUS paper by Hilbert, Rief et al published in the March ’10 edition.

There are also In Press papers by White (CFS: One discrete syndrome or many? FSSs); Knoop, Prins, Moss-Morris, Bleijenberg (Central role of cognitive processes in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome); Voigt, Löwe et al (Systematic review of somatoform disorder diagnoses and suggestions for future classification, DSM-5 and proposed new category CSSD, CISSD Project: Kroenke, Sharpe, Sykes: example criteria); Escobar et al (3 or more concurrent somatic symptoms predict psychopathology and service use); Ladwig, Henningsen, Creed et al (Screening for multiple somatic complaints); Cella and Chalder (Measuring fatigue) .

Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Volume 68, Issue 3, Pages 219-316 (March 2010)

http://www.jpsychores.com/home

March 2010 issue

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms and their significant others: Illness attributions and behaviors as predictors of patient functioning over time, 10 December 2009
Anja Hilbert, Alexandra Martin, Thomas Zech, Elisabeth Rauh, Winfried Rief
pages 253-262
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (161 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00375-4/abstract

———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Chronic fatigue syndrome: Is it one discrete syndrome or many? Implications for the “one vs. many” functional somatic syndromes debate
In Press Corrected Proof, Available online 18 March 2010
Peter D. White
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.008
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (110 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00013-9/abstract

Chronic fatigue syndrome: Is it one discrete syndrome or many? Implications for the “one vs. many” functional somatic syndromes debate
Peter D. White

Received 10 November 2009; received in revised form 12 January 2010; accepted 14 January 2010. published online 18 March 2010.
Corrected Proof

Abstract
There is a current debate as to whether “functional somatic syndromes” (FSSs) are more similar to or different from each other. While at the same time, there is evidence of heterogeneity within single syndromes. So, it could be that these syndromes are all part of one big process/illness, are discrete in their own right, or that they are heterogeneous collections of different illnesses lumped together by common symptoms but separated by uncommon pathophysiologies. The example of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is instructive. There is evidence to support all three models of understanding. Three recent large studies have suggested that FSSs are both similar and dissimilar at the same time. The solution to the debate is that we need to both “lump” and “split.” We need to study both the similarities between syndromes and their dissimilarities to better understand what we currently call the FSSs.

Keywords: Functional somatic syndromes, Chronic fatigue syndrome, heterogeneity, homogeneity, risk markers

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK Department of Psychological Medicine, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London,
EC1A 7BE, UK. Tel.: +44 207 601 8108; fax: +44 207 601 7097.
PII: S0022-3999(10)00013-9
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.008

———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

The central role of cognitive processes in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 17 March 2010
Hans Knoop, Judith B. Prins, Rona Moss-Morris, Gijs Bleijenberg
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.022
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (122 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00063-2/abstract

The central role of cognitive processes in the perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome
Hans Knoop a, Judith B. Prins b, Rona Moss-Morris c, Gijs Bleijenberg d

Received 8 November 2009; received in revised form 26 January 2010; accepted 26 January 2010. published online 17 March 2010.
Corrected Proof

Abstract

Objective
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is considered to be one of the functional somatic syndromes (FSS). Cognitions and behavior are thought to perpetuate the symptoms of CFS. Behavioral interventions based on the existing models of perpetuating factors are quite successful in reducing fatigue and disabilities. The evidence is reviewed that cognitive processes, particularly those that determine the perception of fatigue and its effect on behavior, play a central role in the maintenance of symptoms.

Method
Narrative review.

Results
Findings from treatment studies suggest that cognitive factors mediate the positive effect of behavioral interventions on fatigue. Increased fitness or increased physical activity does not seem to mediate the treatment response. Additional evidence for the role of cognitive processes is found in studies comparing the subjective beliefs patients have of their functioning with their actual performance and in neurobiological research.

Conclusion
Three different cognitive processes may play a role in the perpetuation of CFS symptoms. The first is a general cognitive representation in which fatigue is perceived as something negative and aversive and CFS is seen as an illness that is difficult to influence. The second process involved is the focusing on fatigue. The third element is formed by specific dysfunctional beliefs about activity and fatigue.

Keywords: Chronic fatigue syndrome, Functional somatic syndromes, Perpetuating factors, Treatment studies, Cognitive processes, Perception

a Expert Centre Chronic Fatigue, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
b Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
c School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
d Expert Centre Chronic Fatigue, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Corresponding author. Expert Centre Chronic Fatigue, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbox 9011 , 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31 24 3610042; fax: +31 24 3610041.

This article was written while the first author was a visiting staff member of the School of Psychology at the University of Southampton. The working visit was made possible by a grant of the Dutch MSresearch fund (Stichting MSresearch).

PII: S0022-3999(10)00063-2
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.022

———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Towards positive diagnostic criteria: A systematic review of somatoform disorder diagnoses and suggestions for future classification
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 15 March 2010
Katharina Voigt, Annabel Nagel, Björn Meyer, Gernot Langs, Christoph Braukhaus, Bernd Löwe
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.015
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (183 KB)

Abstract
http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00020-6/abstract

Towards positive diagnostic criteria: A systematic review of somatoform disorder diagnoses and suggestions for future classification
Katharina Voigta 1, Annabel Nagel a1, Björn Meyer a, Gernot Langs b, Christoph Braukhaus b, Bernd Löwe a
Received 1 November 2009; received in revised form 12 January 2010; accepted 14 January 2010. published online 15 March 2010.
Corrected Proof

Abstract

Objectives
The classification of somatoform disorders is currently being revised in order to improve its validity for the DSM-V and ICD-11. In this article, we compare the validity and clinical utility of current and several new diagnostic proposals of those somatoform disorders that focus on medically unexplained somatic symptoms.

Methods
We searched the Medline, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases, as well as relevant reference lists. We included review papers and original articles on the subject of somatoform classification in general, subtypes of validity of the diagnoses, or single diagnostic criteria.

Results
Of all diagnostic proposals, only complex somatic symptom disorder and the Conceptual Issues in Somatoform and Similar Disorders (CISSD) example criteria reflect all dimensions of current biopsychosocial models of somatization (construct validity) and go beyond somatic symptom counts by including psychological and behavioral symptoms that are specific to somatization (descriptive validity). Predictive validity of most of the diagnostic proposals has not yet been investigated. However, the number of somatic symptoms has been found to be a strong predictor of disability. Some evidence indicates that psychological symptoms can predict disease course and treatment outcome (e.g., therapeutic modification of catastrophizing is associated with positive outcome). Lengthy symptom lists, the requirement of lifetime symptom report (as in abridged somatization), complicated symptom patterns (as in current somatization disorder), and imprecise definitions of diagnostic procedures (e.g., missing symptom threshold in complex somatic symptom disorder) reduce clinical utility.

Conclusion
Results from the reviewed studies suggest that, of all current and new diagnostic suggestions, complex somatic symptom disorder and the CISSD definition appear to have advantages regarding validity and clinical utility. The integration of psychological and behavioral criteria could enhance construct and descriptive validity, and confers prospectively relevant treatment implications. The incorporation of a dimensional approach that reflects both somatic and psychological symptom severity also has the potential to improve predictive validity and clinical utility.

Keywords: Classification, Diagnosis, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, International Classification of Diseases, Somatoform disorders, Validation studies as topic

a Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and Schön Klinik Hamburg-Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
b Medical and Psychosomatic Hospital Bad Bramstedt, Bad Bramstedt, Germany
Corresponding author. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 40 7410 59733; fax: +49 40 7410 54975.
1 Both authors contributed equally to this paper.
PII: S0022-3999(10)00020-6
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.015
———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Whether medically unexplained or not, three or more concurrent somatic symptoms predict psychopathology and service use in community populations
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 17 February 2010
Javier I. Escobar, Benjamin Cook, Chi-Nan Chen, Michael A. Gara, Margarita Alegría, Alejandro Interian, Esperanza Diaz
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.001
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (129 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00006-1/abstract

Whether medically unexplained or not, three or more concurrent somatic symptoms predict psychopathology and service use in community populations

Javier I. Escobar, MD ab, Benjamin Cook, PhD c, Chi-Nan Chen, PhD c, Michael A. Gara, PhD abd, Margarita Alegría, PhD c, Alejandro Interian, PhD ab, Esperanza Diaz, MD e

Received 6 May 2009; received in revised form 20 December 2009; accepted 5 January 2010. published online 17 February 2010.
Corrected Proof

Abstract

Objectives
To examine the frequency of somatic symptoms in a community population of various ethnic backgrounds and to identify correlates of these symptoms such as psychopathology, use of services, and personal distress.

Methods
Using a 14-symptom inventory with interviewer probes for somatic symptoms, we determined the presence of general physical symptoms (GPS) in a sample of 4864 white, Latino, and Asian US community respondents. Medically “edited” verbatim interview responses were used to decide whether or not physical symptoms would qualify as medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). We then assessed the association between GPS and MUPS and psychiatric disorders, psychological distress, and use of services, in both unadjusted and multivariate regression analyses.

Results
One-third (33.6%) of the respondents reported at least one GPS and 11.1% reported at least one MUPS within the last year. 10.7% of respondents had three or more GPS and 1.5% had three or more MUPS. Three or more GPS and MUPS were positively associated with depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders; service use; and psychological distress in unadjusted comparisons. In multivariate regressions, GPS persisted as a significant predictor, but there was no significant independent effect of MUPS, after controlling for GPS and other covariates.

Conclusions
Regardless of the presence or absence of medical explanations, physical symptoms are an important component of common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety and predict service use in community populations. These results suggest that three or more current GPS can be used to designate a “case” and that detailed probes and procedures aimed at determining whether or not physical symptoms are medically unexplained may not be necessary for classification purposes.

Keywords: Somatoform disorders, Epidemiology

a Department of Psychiatry, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

b Department of Family Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

c Center for Multicultural Health Research, Cambridge Health Alliance-Harvard Medical School, Somerville, MA, USA

d UMDNJ-University Behavioral Health Care (UBHC) Piscataway, NJ, USA

e Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven CT, USA

Corresponding author.
PII: S0022-3999(10)00006-1
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.001

———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Screening for multiple somatic complaints in a population-based survey: Does excessive symptom reporting capture the concept of somatic symptom disorders? Findings from the MONICA-KORA Cohort Study
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 02 March 2010
Karl Heinz Ladwig, Birgitt Marten-Mittag, Maria Elena Lacruz, Peter
Henningsen, Francis Creed, for the MONICA KORA Investigators
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.009
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (544 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(10)00014-0/abstract

———————-

Articles in Press
http://www.jpsychores.com/inpress

Measuring fatigue in clinical and community settings
In Press Corrected Proof , Available online 11 December 2009
Matteo Cella, Trudie Chalder
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.007
Abstract | Full Text | Full-Text PDF (135 KB)

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(09)00417-6/abstract

Footnotes:

[1] The DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group proposal is that Somatoform Disorders, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition (PFAMC), and Factitious Disorders should be combined under a common rubric entitled “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and for a new classification “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD).”

The DSM-5 public review period runs from 10 February to 20 April 2010. Members of the public, patient representation organisations, professionals and other end users can submit responses, online.

Please take this opportunity to comment and to alert and encourage professionals and international patient organisations to participate. If the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group were to be approved there may be medical, social and economic implications to the detriment of all patient populations – especially those bundled by many psychiatrists under the so-called “Functional Somatic Syndromes” (FSS) and “Medically Unexplained Syndromes” (MUS) umbrella, under which some include CFS, ME, FM, IBS, CI, CS, chronic Lyme disease, GWS and others.

Proposed Draft Revisions to DSM Disorders and Criteria are published here on the APA’s relaunched DSM5.org website: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Somatic Symptom Disorders

Proposed new DSM-5 category: Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder

Two key PDF documents are associated with these proposals:

      Somatic Symptom Disorders Introduction  DRAFT January 29, 2010

      Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms  DRAFT January 29, 2010

[2] Review paper: CISSD Project leads Kroenke K, Sharpe M, Sykes R: Revising the Classification of Somatoform Disorders: Key Questions and Preliminary Recommendations. Psychosomatics 2007 Jul-Aug;48(4):277-85. FREE Full Text: http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/277

18 Proposals submitted by Dr Richard Sykes to WHO ICD Update and Revision Platform, Topical Advisory Group – Mental Health (TAGMH) https://extranet.who.int/icdrevision/GroupPage.aspx?gcode=104

The paper: Kroenke K: Somatoform disorders and recent diagnostic controversies. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2007 Dec;30(4):593-619:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17938036  contains the following caveat:

“Although the CISSD is an ad hoc group that includes many international experts on somatoform disorders, it was neither appointed nor sanctioned by the APA or WHO, the organizations authorized to approve revisions of DSM and ICD, respectively. As such, the CISSD recommendations should be considered advisory rather than official. Also, there were some suggestions for which the CISSD achieved near consensus but other issues where opinions diverged considerably.”

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CISSD Project, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-V, Functional Somatic Syndrome (FSS), ICD-11, MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

ICD Revision: TAG Neurology and TAG Mental Health members

March 23, 2010 by

ICD Revision: TAG Neurology and TAG Mental Health members

Post #26 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-DB

The two ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups (TAGs) that are the primary focus of this site are:

Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health
Topic Advisory Group for Neurology

ICD Revision has published information on the make up of the new International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders (TAGMH) and the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology (TAG Neurology). The professional and scientific organisations that have been asked to appoint representatives to these two groups and the names of their representatives are also published.

Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health

The International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders was constituted by the WHO for a period of two years (2007 – 2008) with the primary task of advising the WHO on all steps leading to the revision of the mental and behavioural disorders classification in ICD-10, in line with the overall ICD revision process.

The initial period of operation has now expired and the group has been reconstituted and reappointed for the next two year period. The appointment of the Harmonization Group and other working groups reporting to the Advisory Group has also now expired, and new working groups will be appointed based on the current needs of the revision.

The Advisory Group is co-ordinated by Senior Project Officer, Dr Geoffrey M Reed, PhD, who is seconded to the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, WHO, Geneva, through the IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science). The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse will also be managing the technical part of the revision of Diseases of the Nervous System (currently Chapter VI), as it is doing for Chapter V.

The group is chaired by Steven E Hyman, MD, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, a former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and a member of the DSM-5 Task Force.

Mental Health Topic Advisory Group

Tasks

The Mental Health TAG reviews categories in ICD-10 relating to mental health and mental illness. The diseases within the scope of the Mental Health TAG are primarily located in Chapter 5 (Mental and Behavioural Disorders). The TAG also formulates definitions and diagnostic criteria for the relevant categories, and suggests changes to the classification structure.

Progress

TAG Mental Health was formed in January, 2007 to work on 11th Revision of the ICD. In 2009, new members were appointed to fill open positions and to meet specific needs prior to the group’s most recent face-to-face meeting in September 2009. The TAG Mental Health will hold its next face-to-face meeting 21-23 June 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Last Updated: 3 February 2010

For membership of TAG Mental Health see this PDF:

Mental Health Topic Advisory Group Feb 10

The first meeting of the reconstituted Advisory Group took place on 28 – 29 September 2009, in Geneva. There have been no other meetings since the December 2008 meeting of the former group.

Summary Reports of meetings held by the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders (currently ICD-10 Chapter V) are published on the WHO main website [PDF format]

1st Meeting: 11 – 12 January 2007, Geneva |
2nd Meeting: 24 – 25 September 2007, Geneva |
3rd Meeting: 11 – 12 March 2008, Geneva |
4th Meeting 1 – 2 December 2008, Geneva |

A Summary Report of the 5th meeting of the group which was held on 28 – 29 September 2009, has yet to be published.

Topic Advisory Group for Neurology

The lead WHO Secretariat for TAG Neurology is Dr Tarun Dua, Management of Mental and Brain Disorders, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, WHO, Geneva. Dr Dua co-ordinated the Atlas Multiple Sclerosis Resources in the World 2008, a collaboration between the World Health Organization and the Multiple Sclerosis International Federation. Dr Dua was a co-author of the World Health Organization publication Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges, 2006 or download by Chapters in PDF format

The group is chaired by Dr Raad Shakir, Imperial College London, London, UK

Neurology Topic Advisory Group

Tasks

The Neurology TAG reviews categories in ICD that relate to neurologic diseases. These diseases are found throughout ICD-10, principally within Chapter 6 (Diseases of the nervous system). The TAG also formulates definitions and diagnostic criteria for the relevant categories, and suggests changes to the classification structure.

Progress

The TAG Neurology was formed under consultation by WHO. The TAG met for their first meeting 22-23 June 2009. A managing editor for the alpha drafting of ICD-11 is identified. Discussions regarding changes to the linearization have started. The Neurology TAG will have its second Face-to-Face Meeting 18-19 February 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Last Updated: 2010-04-02

For membership of TAG Neurology see this PDF:

Neurology Topic Advisory Group Feb 10

 

I am not aware of any meeting summaries, reports or updates published so far by TAG Neurology.

Filed under ICD revision process, ICD-10, ICD-11, ICD-11 consultation, ICD-11 revision docs, Somatoform Disorders, WHO (World Health Organization)

CFIDS Association calls for expert input for DSM-5 submission

March 4, 2010 by

The US CFIDS Association calls for expert input for DSM-5 submission

Post #23 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-Cl  

Image Source: Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, Nevada, November ‘09 Annual Meeting slide presentation, Francis Creed, MD, FRCP: Can We Now Explain Medically Unexplained Symptoms? See this posting

The March issue of CFIDSLink-e-News reports that the CFIDS Association of America is seeking input from outside experts into the DSM-5 public review process:

Extract:

“Advocacy Counts

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) is being revised by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The proposed revision, DSM5, has drawn media coverage and close scrutiny since its release on Feb. 10. Creation of a new category called “Complex Somatic Symptoms Disorder” is of particular concern to CFS patients and organizations. The Association is seeking input from outside experts and will submit a review of the biological abnormalities in CFS to APA. The APA will accept public comments until April 20.”

The DSM-5 Work Group for “Somatic Symptom Disorders” is proposing that Somatoform Disorders, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition (PFAMC), and Factitious Disorders should be combined under a common rubric entitled “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and for a new classification “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD).”

The DSM-5 public review period runs from 10 February to 20 April, so there are just over six weeks during which stakeholders in DSM-5 – that’s members of the public, patient representation organisations, professionals and other end users can submit their responses.

Please take this opportunity to submit a response and to alert and encourage professionals and international patient organisations to participate. Key links are provided at the end of this posting.

The following UK organisations have so far been silent on the DSM-5 proposals.

All seven organisations have been contacted, today, for position statements on whether they intend to submit a response and if so, whether their responses will be published:

Action for M.E.
The ME Association:
AYME
The Young ME Sufferers Trust,
The 25% M.E. Group
Invest in ME: Intend to submit a response and to publish
ME Research UK

I would welcome copies of submissions from any patient organisations, professionals and advocates for publication on a dedicated page, here, on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch:

Go here to read Mary M. Schweitzer’s Submission to the Work Group for Somatic Symptom Disorders.

To submit a comment online register here:

APA’s new DSM-5 Development site: http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

You can also register via a link at the bottom of each proposal, for example, at the bottom of this key page:

Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)

Note that if you are viewing proposals from this page:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

you won’t see the page for:

“Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition”

This is one of the DSM-IV categories that the Work Group is proposing should be combined with several other current categories under “Somatic Symptom Disorders”.

In order to view this page, the Proposed Revision, Rationale and other Tabs, or if you wished to submit a comment specifically in relation to this proposal, this is the URL:

316 Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=387

There are two key PDF documents associated with proposals for the DSM categories currently classified under “Somatoform Disorders”:

     Disorder Descriptions PDF: APA Somatic Symptom Disorders description January 29 2010

     Rationale PDF: APA DSM Validity Propositions 1-29-2010

These provide an overview of the new proposals and revisions and a “Justification of Criteria” rationale document. I would recommend downloading these if intending to make a submission.

Related information:

[1] APA’s new DSM-5 Development webpages

[2] Somatoform Disorders:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/SomatoformDisorders.aspx

[3] Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)  [Ed: Proposed new category]
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

[4] Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition  [Ed: Proposed for revision]
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=387

[5] Key PDF documents:

PDF A] Somatic Symptom Disorders Introduction DRAFT 1/29/10
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Somatic/APA%20Somatic%20Symptom%20Disorders%20description%20January29%202010.pdf

PDF B] Justification of Criteria – Somatic Symptoms DRAFT 1/29/10
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Somatic/APA%20DSM%20Validity%20Propositions%201-29-2010.pdf

[6] For more information see my DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site, DSM-5 proposals page: http://wp.me/PKrrB-jZ

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), CFIDS Association, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-V, MUS, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders

← Older posts

Newer posts →