ICD-11 Beta draft: Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of proposed new category: Bodily distress disorder

Post #328 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-4dc

ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism:


(Registration with the Beta draft required in order to view proposals)

  ICD-11 Bodily distress disorder submission

Proposal submitted by Suzy Chapman, Dx Revision Watch, via ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism

Submitted: March 1, 2017

The author has no affiliations or conflicts of interest to declare.

Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of the Entity: Bodily distress disorder

1: The acronym “BDD” is already in use to indicate Body Dysmorphic Disorder [1].

2: With limited field studies, there is currently no substantial body of evidence for the validity, reliability, utility, prevalence, safety and acceptability of the S3DWG’s proposed disorder construct. However, the focus of this rationale is the proposed nomenclature.

The Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders Working Group (S3DWG) proposes to name its construct, “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” – a term that is already used by researchers and in the field interchangeably with the disorder term, “bodily distress syndrome (BDS).”

“Bodily distress syndrome” is a conceptually divergent disorder construct: differently defined and characterized, with different criteria that are already operationalized in Denmark and beyond, in research and clinical settings, and which potentially include a different patient set to that described in the S3DWG’s proposal [2].

As defined for the ICD-11 core version, the S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” construct has stronger conceptual and characterization alignment with DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder (SSD)” than with Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome” [3][4].

It is noted that “Somatic symptom disorder” is listed under Synonyms for the BDD entry in the ICD-11 Beta draft.

The defining feature of both the S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” and DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder” is the removal of the distinction between “medically explained” and “medically unexplained” somatic complaints. Rather than define the disorder on the basis of the absence of a known medical cause, instead, specific psychological features are required in order to fulfill the criteria.

The S3DWG’s BDD is characterized by “the presence of bodily symptoms that are distressing to the individual and excessive attention directed toward the symptoms which may be manifest by repeated contact with health care providers.”

“Excessive attention is not alleviated by appropriate clinical examination and investigations and appropriate reassurance.”

“If a medical condition is causing or contributing to the symptoms, the degree of attention is clearly excessive in relation to its nature and progression.”

“Bodily symptoms and associated distress are persistent, being present on most days for at least several months and are associated with significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning.”

The S3DWG’s “bodily distress disorder” may involve a single unspecified somatic symptom or multiple unspecified symptoms that may vary over time, in association with the disorder’s other defining features.

For DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder,” the centrality of medically unexplained symptoms in order to meet the criteria is similarly de-emphasized and replaced by psychological responses to distressing, persistent symptoms: “excessive thoughts, behaviours and feelings” or “excessive preoccupation” with the bodily symptom or associated health concerns [5].

As with BDD, for SSD, the symptoms may or may not be associated with another medical condition. Some patients with general medical  diagnoses, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, or patients diagnosed with the so-called “functional somatic syndromes” may qualify for a diagnosis of SSD if they are perceived as experiencing disproportionate and excessive thoughts and feelings or using maladaptive coping strategies in response to their illness, despite the reassurance of their clinicians [6].

As with the S3DWG’s defining of BDD, for SSD, there is no requirement for a specific number of complaints from among specified symptom groups to meet the criteria: so no symptoms counts or symptom clusters from body systems required for either.

To meet the SSD criteria: at least one symptom of at least six months duration and at least one of three psychological criteria are required: disproportionate thoughts about the seriousness of the symptom(s); or a high level of health anxiety; or devoting excessive time and energy to symptoms or health concerns; and for the symptoms to be significantly distressing or disruptive to daily life.

Though they differ somewhat in the characterization of their severity specifiers, the S3DWG’s defining of BDD and DSM-5 SSD may be considered essentially similar in conceptualization: no distinction between “medically explained” and “medically unexplained”; a much simplified criteria set to those defining the somatoform disorders, based on “excessive” or “disproportionate” psychological responses to persistent distressing symptoms, and with significant impairment or disruption to functioning.

Whereas, for the Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome (BDS),” psychological or behavioural characteristics are not part of the criteria: symptom patterns or clusters from organ/body systems (cardiopulmonary; gastrointestinal; musculoskeletal or general symptoms) are central [2]. The diagnosis is exclusively made on the basis of the somatic symptoms, their complexity and duration, with moderate  to severe impairment of daily life. There is a “Modest: single organ” type and a “Severe: multi-organ” type.

The Fink et al. (2010) BDS construct is considered by its authors to have the ability to capture the somatoform disorders, neurasthenia, “functional symptoms” and the so-called “functional somatic syndromes” under a single, unifying disorder construct which subsumes CFS, ME, fibromyalgia and IBS (which are discretely classified within other chapters of ICD-10), noncardiac chest pain, chronic pain disorder, MCS and some others [7][8][9].

(The various so-called specialty “functional somatic syndromes” are considered by the authors to be an artifact of medical specialization and manifestations of a similar, underlying disorder with a common, hypothesized aetiology.)

Contrast this with the S3DWG’s BDD construct, which makes no assumptions about aetiology and does not exclude symptoms associated with general medical conditions; whereas, for Fink et al. BDS, “If the symptoms are better explained by another disease, they cannot be labelled BDS.”

That DSM-5 SSD and Fink et al. (2010) BDS are differently conceptualized, with different criteria sets, potentially capturing different patient populations has been acknowledged by SSD work group chair, Joel E Dimsdale, and by Fink, Henningsen and Creed [10][11]. In the literature, however, one observes frequent instances where the term “bodily distress disorder” has been used when what is actually being discussed within the paper or editorial is the Fink et al. (2010) “bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” disorder construct.

For example, “bodily distress disorder” is used interchangeably with “bodily distress syndrome” in the editorial (Creed et al. 2010): Is there a better term than “medically unexplained symptoms”? [1].

In this (Rief and Isaac 2014) editorial: The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? the authors are using the term, “bodily distress disorder” while clearly discussing the Fink et al. (2010) BDS  construct [12].

The S3DWG’s proposed term is seen, here, as “Bodily distress disorder (Fink and Schroder 2010)” in Slide #3 of the symposium presentation: An introduction to “medically unexplained” persistent physical symptoms. (Professor Trudie Chalder, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s Health Partners, 2014) [13].

This recent paper: Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders (Schumacher et al. 2017) compares prognostic validity of DSM-5 “somatic symptom disorder (SSD)” with “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” and “polysymptomatic distress disorder (PSDD)” and discusses their potential as alternatives to SSD for the replacement of the somatoform disorders for the forthcoming ICD-11 [14].

The authors state, “the current draft of the WHO group is based on the BDD proposal.” But the authors  have confirmed that for their study, they had operationalized “Bodily distress disorder based on Fink et al. 2007” [15].

In the (Fink et al. 2007) paper: Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients, the authors conclude: “We identified a general, distinct, bodily distress syndrome or disorder that seems to encompass the various functional syndromes advanced by different medical specialties as well as somatization disorder and related diagnoses of the psychiatric classification.”

There are other examples in the literature and in the field. But these suffice to demonstrate that the term, “bodily distress disorder” is already used synonymously with disorder term “bodily distress syndrome (BDS)” and that researchers/clinicians, including Fink et al., do not differentiate between the two.

If researchers/clinicians do not differentiate between “bodily distress syndrome” and “bodily distress disorder” (and in some cases, one observes the conflations, “bodily distress syndrome or disorder” and “bodily distress syndrome/disorder”), has the S3DWG considered the difficulties and implications for maintaining the discrete identity of its proposed disorder, once ICD-11 is in the hands of its end users – clinicians, allied health professionals and coders; or considered the implications for patients and the particular vulnerability of those diagnosed with one of the so-called, “functional somatic syndromes”; or the implications for data reporting and analysis?

The S3DWG presented its emerging proposals for subsuming most of the ICD-10 somatoform disorder categories between F45.0 – F45.9, and F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a new single category which it proposes to call “bodily distress disorder (BDD)” in 2012 [3] and again in 2016 [4].

Thus far, the S3DWG has published no rationale for its recommendation to repurpose a disorder term already strongly associated with the Fink et al. (2010) disorder construct.

Neither has the group discussed nor acknowledged within its papers the implications for confusion and conflation between its own SSD- like “BDD” construct and the Fink et al. “bodily distress syndrome (BDS).”

Nor has the group’s output discussed the potential difficulties and implications for maintaining construct integrity within and beyond  ICD-11.

There is no justification for introducing a new disorder category into ICD-11 that has greater conceptual alignment with the DSM-5 SSD construct but is proposed to be assigned a disorder name that is closely associated with a divergent (and operationalized)  construct/criteria set, that is already in use in research and clinical settings.

This is unsafe and unsound classificatory practice.

This proposed disorder name should be rejected by the Project Lead for the revision of the Mental or behavioural disorders chapter and by the Joint Task Force that is overseeing the finalization of ICD-11  MMS.

If the S3DWG is unprepared or unwilling to reconsider and recommend an alternative disorder name then I submit that the current proposal to replace the somatoform disorders with a single “bodily distress disorder” category should be abandoned.

ICD-11 should proceed with the ICD-10 status quo, or retire or deprecate the somatoform disorder categories for the next edition.

It is perhaps germane that in 2010, three years prior to the finalization of DSM-5, Creed et al. had advanced: “Somatic symptom disorder is not a term that is likely to be embraced enthusiastically by doctors or patients; it has an uncertain core concept, dubious wide acceptability across cultures and does not promote multidisciplinary treatment. In our discussion, the terms which fit most closely the criteria we have set out above were the following: bodily distress (or stress) syndrome/ disorder, psychosomatic or psychophysical disorder, functional (somatic) syndrome or disorder.” [1]

The authors conclude that “bodily distress disorder” best fitted their “Criteria to judge the value of alternative terms for ‘medically unexplained symptoms.'”

It would appear that the term “bodily distress disorder” can mean anything anyone chooses it to mean – which might be admissible for Humpty Dumpty but unsound classificatory practice for ICD-11 [16].


1 Creed F, Guthrie E, Fink P, Henningsen P, Rief W, Sharpe M, White P. Is there a better term than “medically unexplained symptoms”? J Psychosom Res. 2010 Jan;68(1):5-8. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.09.004. [PMID: 20004295]

2 Fink P, Schröder A. One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2010 May;68(5):415-26. [PMID: 20403500]

3 Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. doi: 10.3109/09540261.2012.741063. [PMID: 23244611]

4 Gureje O, Reed GM. Bodily distress disorder in ICD-11: problems and prospects. World Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;15(3):291-292. doi: 10.1002/wps.20353. [PMID: 27717252]

5 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

6 Frances A, Chapman S. DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. [PMID: 23653063]

7 Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS. Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract. 2013 Feb;30(1):76-87. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cms037. Epub 2012 Jul 28. [PMID: 22843638]

8 Ivbijaro G, Goldberg D. Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Ment Health Fam Med. 2013 Jun;10(2):63-4. [PMID: 24427171]

9 Goldberg DP, Reed GM, Robles R, Bobes J, Iglesias C, Fortes S, de Jesus Mari J, Lam TP, Minhas F, Razzaque B et al. Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care: A field study for ICD-11 PHC, WHO’s revised classification of mental disorders in primary care settings. J Psychosom Res. 2016 Dec;91:48-54. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.10.002. Epub 2016 Oct 4. [PMID: 27894462]

10 Medically Unexplained Symptoms, Somatisation and Bodily Distress: Developing Better Clinical Services, Francis Creed, Peter Henningsen, Per Fink (Eds), Cambridge University Press, 2011.

11 Frances Creed and Per Fink. Presentations, Research Clinic for Functional Disorders Symposium, Aarhus University Hospital, May 15, 2014.

12 Rief W, Isaac M. The future of somatoform disorders: somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder or functional syndromes? Curr Opin Psychiatry September 2014 – Volume 27 – Issue 5 – p315–319. [PMID: 25023885]

13 Chalder, T. An introduction to “medically unexplained” persistent physical symptoms. Presentation, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s Health Partners, 2014. [Accessed 27 February 2017]

14 Schumacher S, Rief W, Klaus K, Brähler E, Mewes R. Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders. Psychol Med. 2017 Feb 9:1-14. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000149. [PMID: 28179046]

15 Fink P, Toft T, Hansen MS, Ornbol E, Olesen F. Symptoms and syndromes of bodily distress: an exploratory study of 978 internal medical, neurological, and primary care patients. Psychosom Med. 2007 Jan;69(1):30-9. [PMID: 17244846]

16 Carroll L. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. 1885. Macmillan.












Update to Letter to key Revision personnel re Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform

Post #324 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-46A

Update at February 23, 2016: Since no proposals and rationales for the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms were released in September or December 2015, I contacted ICD’s Dr Robert Jakob, again. Dr Jakob told me on February 2, 2016 that “[ICD-11 Revsion is] still working on the extensive review and the conclusions.”

This report is an update to Post #322:

Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel

Eight years into the revision process and stakeholders still don’t know how ICD Revision proposes to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms for ICD-11.

In ICD-10, the (G93.3) Title term is Postviral fatigue syndrome; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the Inclusion term under G93.3; Chronic fatigue syndrome is included in the Index only, and indexed to the G93.3 code [1].

By 2012, the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft had the three terms listed as in the screenshot, below – still under the Diseases of the nervous system chapter, but with a change of relationship between the three terms.

At that point, Chronic fatigue syndrome was being proposed as a new ICD Title term; Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis* was specified as the Inclusion term (indicated in the draft by hover text over the asterisk which is not displaying in this screenshot).

Postviral fatigue syndrome, previously designated as Title code in ICD-10, was now located under Synonyms, in a list of alternative and historical terms imported from other terminology systems and health informatics sources, including two terms specific to Chapter 18: Symptoms, signs etc. of the U.S. ICD-10-CM clinical modification [4].


Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version, July 25, 2012.


In early 2013, ICD Revision removed the entry for Chronic fatigue syndrome and its associated terms from the public version of the Beta draft; from that point on, none of the terms were accessible in any Linearization.

(In the version of the Beta that the public sees, there are no holding pens viewable for categories “Needing a decision to be made” and no tab for “Category Notes and Decisions” which might indicate the rationale for the temporary or permanent absence of a category from the draft.)

Although a Change History function was incorporated into the public Beta in March, no Change History is available for these terms. The Topic Advisory Group (TAG) for Neurology has published no progress reports on emerging proposals for scrutiny and discussion.

So for over 2 years, now, stakeholders have been unable to monitor evolving proposals for the classification of these G93.3 legacy entities within ICD-11. The continued absence of these terms hinders submission of comments and suggestions on proposed chapter location(s), parent classes, hierarchies, inclusions, exclusions, definitions or other Content Model descriptive text.


Request for release of information on current status of proposals

On June 8, I sent a letter to Bedirhan Üstün (WHO/ICD Revision Coordinator), Cc’d to key ICD Revision personnel and the recently assembled ICD Revision Project Management Team, requesting an update on the status of proposals for these terms and their restoration to the draft [5]. Read letter here

On Friday, June 19, Anneke Schmider (WHO Technical Officer, ICD Revision Project Manager) facilitated a conference call with myself and Dr Robert Jakob (WHO ICD classifications, ICD Revision Steering Group) in which Dr Jakob responded to my letter, having obtained a progress report from TAG Neurology.

NB: It was not the purpose of this discussion to advance my own views on how these terms should be represented within ICD-11 but to elicit clarifications on the current status of proposals.


Summary of main points from our discussion:

TAG Neurology retains responsibility for these three terms.

None of the sub-working groups that sit under TAG Neurology has specific responsibility for these terms.

TAG Neurology is still reviewing the literature and has yet to reach consensus about where to classify these terms within ICD-11.

Dr Jakob says he can be “crystal clear” that there is no proposal to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms under the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter.


The ICD-11 principle of multiple parenting was discussed in general terms: multiple parenting allows the same disease to be expressed in two (or more) places in the ICD-11 linearizations. A disease or disorder category will be located under a primary parent class within one chapter but may also be searchable under a secondary (or tertiary) parent within another chapter, whilst retaining the code assigned in the primary location. (See ICD-11 Multiple parenting Slides 42-48)

Because TAG Neurology is still working towards consensus, Dr Jakob would not be drawn on the following:

whether relocating one or more of these terms from the Diseases of the nervous system to an alternative chapter(s) was under consideration;

whether retaining one or more of these terms within the Diseases of the nervous system chapter but secondary parenting under an alternative chapter(s) was under consideration;

what existing parent classes were being considered for locating these terms under;

whether the creation of any new parent classes was being considered for these terms;

whether any changes in the relationship between the three terms, as they had stood in the Beta draft in early 2013, have already been agreed or remain under consideration (ie any changes to which of the terms are identified as ICD Title terms, which are specified as Inclusion terms and which are listed as Synonyms).

which of the terms are proposed to be assigned a Definition and other Content Model descriptive text and where definition(s) would be sourced from.

It remains unclarified, therefore, whether ICD-11 intends to define CFS discretely from BME. Also unclarified: whether exclusions for these terms are proposed to be inserted under categories such as Bodily distress disorder; Fatigue [previously Malaise and fatigue in ICD-10]; and a proposed new Diseases of the nervous system parent term, Functional clinical forms of the nervous system (a proposal that TAG Mental Health opposes).

I have already submitted requests via the Proposal Mechanism that PVFS, BME and CFS are inserted under Exclusions to Bodily distress disorder, and Fatigue.


With regard to a date by which we might anticipate proposals being released:

The Beta draft was frozen on May 31, 2015. The Beta Comment facility is open and stakeholders can register to comment on the draft or submit formal proposals for changes and enhancements to proposals via the Proposals Mechanism. Another frozen release is expected in August. (But while TAG Neurology’s proposals remain absent from the Beta and unpublished elsewhere, stakeholders are in no position to comment on the TAG proposals or submit suggestions for modifications to TAG proposals.)

Dr Jakob says that in September 2015, ICD Revision plans to post various materials relating to the development process on the WHO/ICD website for public scrutiny, this to possibly include rationales, and documents relating to the abridged Primary Care version of ICD-11.

If TAG Neurology’s proposals for the G93.3 legacy terms are not ready for September release, then Dr Jakob projected their release towards the end of December 2015.

The target date for presentation of ICD-11 for World Health Assembly (WHA) approval is currently proposed for May 2018. There would be a period for public review and comment prior to presentation for adoption.

I will update on the status of proposals for these terms as soon as further information becomes available.

It is regrettable that stakeholders are little better informed than they were two years ago.


Bodily stress syndrome (S3DWG); Bodily stress syndrome (PCCG)

My longstanding concerns regarding the proposals of the WHO Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) for the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders and the alternative proposals of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) were beyond the scope of my letter to Dr Üstün and my discussions with Dr Jakob in response to that letter.

However, I advised Dr Jakob that my concerns around proposals for the S3DWG’s “Bodily distress disorder” and the Primary Care Consultation Group’s “Bodily stress syndrome” have been discussed with ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed, and in formal submissions via the Proposals Mechanism and Beta Comment facility for the consideration of TAG Mental Health [6][7].


References and related posts

1 ICD-10 Version: 2015 Chapter VI Diseases of the nervous system, G93.3

2 ICD-11 Beta drafting platform (Public version)

Frozen release at May 31, 2015

3 ICD-11 Beta Proposal Mechanism (Registration required for access)

4 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 2, Dx Revision Watch

5 Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel, Dx Revision Watch

6 Personal correspondence; ICD-11 Beta Proposal Mechanism.

7 Comment submitted to ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Mental Health re: Bodily distress disorder, Suzy Chapman



Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 terms from the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform: Letter to key Revision personnel

Post #322 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-45z

Update: June 12, 2015: This situation is now being looked into by a member of the recently assembled ICD-11 Project Management team.

As previously posted:

Although the development process for ICD-11 has been in progress for eight years, it’s still not known how ICD Revision proposes to classify the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy terms.

On June 8, I sent a letter, via email, to WHO/ICD Revision, requesting a prompt resolution to this situation:

For the attention of Bedirhan Üstün (WHO/ICD Revision Coordinator, Project Management Team)


Dr Margaret Chan (Director-General, WHO)
Robert Jakob (Medical Officer, WHO ICD classifications)
Christopher Chute (Chair, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group)
Tarun Dua (lead WHO Secretariat for Topic Advisory Group for Neurology)
Raad Shakir (Chair, Topic Advisory Group for Neurology)
Marjorie S. Greenberg (ex-officio NCHS, WHO-FIC, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group member, team member external assessors for ICD revision process)
Anneke Schmider (WHO Technical Officer, ICD Revision Project Manager)
J Ties Boerma (ICD Revision Project Management team)
Ségolène Aymé (founder Orphanet, chair of ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group for Rare Diseases)
Stefanie Weber (DIMDI German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information, WHO-FIC)

Re: Continued absence of the ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities from the public version of the Beta drafting platform

Monday, June 8, 2015

Dear Dr Üstün,

At the end of May, a frozen release was posted for the ICD-11 Beta draft.

I remain extremely concerned that there are still no entries in the public Beta, within any linearization, for the three ICD-10 G93.3 legacy entities:

Postviral fatigue syndrome
Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis
Chronic fatigue syndrome

As you are aware, these three entities (plus a dozen or so synonym terms) were removed without explanation from the Diseases of the nervous system chapter of the public version of the Beta draft, in early 2013.

Consequently, for over 2 years, stakeholders throughout the world have been unable to view evolving proposals for the classification of these entities within ICD-11 or to scrutinise proposed chapter location, proposed hierarchies, proposed Definitions and other Content Model parameters.

It is very difficult to monitor, make comments or suggestions where terms are not represented within the draft.

A request submitted by me, in February, via the Proposal Mechanism, to restore these entities to the public Beta has produced no response.

While these three entities remain absent from the Beta draft, stakeholders are effectively disenfranchised from participating in the revision process.

Since the start of the revision process, in 2007, no progress reports, editorials or journal papers have been published on behalf of TAG Neurology discussing the work group’s deliberations for these specific entities.

Since early 2013, when the three entities were removed from the public Beta, there has been no information available, at all.

I am aware that in March 2014, enquiries had been made by English and Scottish Health Directorates and that WHO was jointly approached by several UK registered ME/CFS patient organizations and English parliamentarians. The WHO’s response, at that point, was that proposals for the classification of these terms was unresolved and that more time and more input from the work groups was required [1].

A year later, the need for clarification for current proposals remains unmet.

Given the level of concern amongst stakeholders, globally, would you please look into this matter?

Could you please expedite the restoring of these terms to the Beta draft, with a Change History, in order that the ICD-11 development process can be inclusive of the thousands of clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, advocacy organizations and patients with a stakeholder interest in the classification of these terms.

If it is not possible to restore terms to the Beta while a freeze is in operation, could TAG Neurology be instructed to issue an immediate statement of intention for these terms, in the interim?

Many thanks in anticipation of a swift resolution.


Suzy Chapman

1 Correspondence, Scottish Health Directorate and WHO, March 2014, obtained under FOI.

Background to this letter:

In ICD-10 Version 2015:

Postviral fatigue syndrome is coded in Chapter VI: Diseases of the nervous system (the Neurology chapter), at code G93.3, under parent class G93 Other disorders of brain (view here).

Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is the inclusion term to Postviral fatigue syndrome and assigned the G93.3 code.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is not included in ICD-10 Volume 1: The Tabular List but is indexed to G93.3 in ICD-10: Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index.

(The orange symbol denotes an Index term)


Proposals for ICD-11

In May 2010, a change to the hierarchical relationship between the three terms had been proposed. Whereas Postviral fatigue syndrome had been the Title category term for ICD-10, Chronic fatigue syndrome was proposed as the Title category term for ICD-11.

As part of a substantive reorganization of the Neurology chapter, the parent class, G93 Other disorders of brain (under which the ICD-10 categories G93.0 thru G93.9 were located), is proposed to be retired for ICD-11.

This has meant that the terms that sat under the G93 parent class for ICD-10 would need to be relocated under alternative parent classes for ICD-11 or have new parent classes created for them.

In July 2012, the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform had stood as in my screenshot, below.

It’s not evident in my screenshot, but the asterisk at the end of Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis displayed a hover text denoting its specification as the Inclusion term to ICD Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome.

Also not evident in this cropped screenshot is the listing of Postviral fatigue syndrome under Synonyms.

At this point, around 14 historical or alternative terms were listed under Synonyms. These additional uncoded for terms, which had included the ICD-10-CM R53.82 terms, chronic fatigue, unspecified and chronic fatigue syndrome nos, had been scraped from other classification and EMR systems as part of the Beta drafting process :


Source: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, July 25, 2012.

In November 2012, ICD Revision inserted a scrappy Definition for Chronic fatigue syndrome (this replaced an earlier draft ICD-11 Beta Definition). I have sourced this draft Definition to an internal ICD Revision/Stanford Protege document (line 1983):

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by extreme chronic fatigue of an indeterminate cause, which is disabling andt [sic] does not improve with rest and that is exacerbated by physical or mental activity.

The “Selected Cause” sub linearization was later removed from the public Beta draft and some of the terms that had been listed under it were restored to the Neurology chapter and to other chapters. But Title term, Chronic fatigue syndrome, its Inclusion term and its list of Synonyms were not restored to any chapter.

Since February 2013, no listing can be found in any chapter of the public version of the Beta draft, under any linearization, for any of the terms, Postviral fatigue syndrome, Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis or Chronic fatigue syndrome, either as uniquely coded for ICD Title terms, or as Inclusion terms or as Synonyms to Title terms, or listed in the ICD-11 Beta Index.

So currently, there is no information within the Beta draft for proposals for these three terms.

The public version of the Beta drafting platform displays no editing “Change History” or “Category Notes” for these terms and their continued absence from the draft is hampering professional and public stakeholder scrutiny, discourse and comment.

This is not acceptable for any disease category, given that ICD Revision is promoted by WHO’s, Bedirhan Üstün, as an open and transparent process that is inclusive of all classes of stakeholder. The recent external review of the revision process has called for greater transparency [1].

Since June 2013, my repeated requests for an explanation for the absence of these three terms from the Beta draft and for ICD Revision’s intentions for these terms were ignored by ICD Revision until July 2014, when a response was forthcoming from ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed.

It is understood that Annette Brooke MP also received a response, in July 2014, from WHO’s, Dr Robert Jakob, in respect of the joint organizations’ letter of March 18, for which Ms Brooke had been a co-signatory [2].

What clarifications have been given?

WHO and ICD Revision’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed (Senior Project Officer, Revision of Mental and behavioural disorders), have said that there has been no proposal and no intention to include ME or other conditions such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome in the classification of mental disorders.

Dr Reed has said that the easiest way to make this absolutely clear will be through the use of exclusion terms. However, he has said that he would be unable to request that exclusion terms are added to relevant Mental and behavioural disorders categories (e.g. Bodily distress disorder) until the conditions that are being excluded exist in the classification; that at such time, he would be happy to do so.

In August 2014, I submitted two FOI requests, one to the Scottish Health Directorate, one to the English Department of Health. The latter was not deemed specific enough in terms of named health agencies for a response to be generated, but I did receive information regarding the former.

Extract from FOI Response: September 24, 2014: FOI request fulfilled by (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA),

Information held covering the time period indicated relates to an email exchange on 11 and 12 March 2014 as part of a request for advice in answering Ministerial correspondence.

On 11 March the World Health Organisation WHO were asked “I would be very grateful for your help in confirming the status of an element within the WHO’s ICD 11 regarding ME/CFS. On 25th February in the UK parliament, the Under-Secretary of State for Health informed the UK parliament that the WHO had publicy stated that there was no proposal  to reclassify ME/CFS in ICD-11…I would be very grateful if you can confirm that this is the case and if possible, provide a web link to the original wording so I can include this within the correspondence I am preparing”.

The WHO responded on 12 March; “The question regarding MS/CFS [sic] and ICD-11 has been asked recently by several different parties. At this point in time, the ICD-11 is still under development, and to handle this classification issue we will need more time and input from the relevant working groups. It would be premature to make any statement on the subject below.

The general information on ICD Revision can be accessed here: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/. The current state of development of ICD-11 (draft) can be viewed here (and comments can be made, after self registration): http://www.who.int/classifications/icd11 ”.

A further email on 12 March to the WHO asked; “It would be fair to say then …that work will continue on the draft with an expected publication in 2015?”.

WHO responded on 12 March; “Work on the draft will continue until presentation at the World Health Assembly in 2017**. Before, reviews and field testing will provide input to a version that is available for commenting, as much as possible and proposals can be submitted online* with the mechanisms provided already.”

*Since the three terms are currently not accounted for within the Beta draft this impedes the submission of comments.

**Rescheduled in May, this year; the proposed target for presentation for WHA approval is currently May 2018.

This is all that has been disclosed by WHO/ICD Revision in respect of current proposals for the classification of the three ICD-10 G93.3 terms, despite the fact that ICD-11 has now been under development for 8 years, and prior to the timeline extension in January 2014, the new edition had been scheduled for WHA approval and dissemination in 2015.

There remain 6 important questions to be answered by WHO/ICD Revision:

• under which chapter(s) are PVFS, BME and CFS proposed to be located?
• under which parent classes?
• what hierarchies are proposed, in terms of coded for Title terms, Inclusions, Synonyms?
• which of the terms are to be assigned definitions?
• where will definitions be sourced from?
• when will the terms be restored to the draft to enable scrutiny and comment?

Important caveats: The public Beta platform is not a static document, it is a work in progress, subject to daily editing and revision, to field test evaluation and to approval by the RSG and WHO classification experts. Not all new proposals may survive the ICD-11 field tests. Chapter numbering, codes and “sorting codes” currently assigned to ICD categories are not stable and will change as chapters and parent/child hierarchies are reorganized. The public version of the Beta is incomplete; not all “Content Model” parameters display or are populated; the draft may contain errors and omissions.

References and related posts

1 ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

2 Joint Open letter to WHO/ICD Revision over classification of absent G93.3 terms for ICD-11 Beta draft

3 ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

4 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 1

5 Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 2

6 Summary of responses from WHO re: Bodily distress disorder, Bodily stress syndrome, Bodily Distress Syndrome

ICD-11 Revision releases External review and Response: shifts projected WHA adoption to 2018

Post #321 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-44N

Update: August 6, 2015

ICD Revision has now published a revised Project Plan and Communication Schedule:

ICD Project Plan 2015 to 2018


As previously posted


And so it goes on…

The revision of ICD-10 and development of ICD-11 kicked off in April 2007. The original projected WHA adoption date was 2011/12 [1].

Then a shift to 2015, then to 2017.

WHO has just kicked the can further down the road to May 2018.

In July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) Office of the Assistant Director General, Health Systems and Innovation, posted a call for expressions of interest from suitable contractors to conduct an interim assessment of the 11th Revision for International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

External assessment was prompted by concerns raised by WHO Member States, UN Statistical Commission and other stakeholder organizations about the status of the revision and the utility of the ICD-11 product.

The External review of ICD-11 Revision’s progress has now been completed.

Last week, WHO quietly released a report on the status of the ICD revision process, its management and resources, the feasibility of meeting its goals and timelines, and its fitness for purpose.

The reviewers’ assessment and recommendations can be read here: External report

Read WHO’s initial response to the report’s findings and the actions ICD Revision proposes to take here: WHO Response to External Report

WHO says:

WHO welcomes the constructive messages of the Report of the ICD-11 Revision Review. WHO is initiating the second phase of the revision process, acting immediately on the Review’s recommendations.

A revised workplan will be formulated before the end of June and submitted for approval to the RSG-SEG. During 2015 the WHO secretariat will be strengthened in terms of project management, communication of progress and plans, documentation and transparency of decision-making and classification expertise, as recommended by the reviewers.

As I predicted, a further shift in the development timeline from WHA adoption in May 2017 to May 2018 is proposed, along with other measures.


1 Exhibit 1 WHO Letter August 2007
Letter Saxena, WHO, to Ritchie, IUPsyS (International Union for Psychological Science), August 2007

2 External Review ICD-11 (Consultancy Interim Assessment of 11th ICD Revision, January – March 2015)

3 WHO Response to External Review of ICD-11 (Initial WHO response to the report of the external review of the ICD-11 revision,Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems, May 12 2015)

References for intention not to retain Neurasthenia for ICD-11

Post #319 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-439

When ICD-10 was completed in 1992, Chapter V Mental and behavioural disorders retained the disorder category term, Neurasthenia, coded at F48.0.

This is how Neurasthenia is listed within ICD-10:

F48.0 Neurasthenia (with Fatigue syndrome as inclusion term).


Neurasthenia and ICD-10-CM

The forthcoming U.S. specific ICD-10-CM inherits Neurasthenia in Chapter 5 Mental, Behavioral and Neurodevelopmental disorders (F01–F99). But here, it is coded under F48.8, owing to the different coding arrangement for the F48–F48.9 entities within ICD-10-CM.

This is how Neurasthenia is listed in the ICD-10-CM Tabular List release for FY 2015*

Neurasthenia ICD-10-CM

*Although the FY 2015 ICD-10-CM is now available for public download and viewing, the codes in ICD-10-CM are not currently valid for any purpose or use until implementation date is reached.


Neurasthenia and DSM

There was no discrete category for Neurasthenia within DSM-IV or DSM-IV-TR; nor within DSM-5, which published in May 2013.


Neurasthenia and ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC

I reported in 2012 that for ICD-11 and ICD-11-PHC, the intention is not to retain Neurasthenia.

Here are the references:

Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;24(6):556-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244611 [Full text behind paywall]

On Page 563 of this review paper, the authors state that a major highlight of the proposals of the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (the S3DWG sub working group) for the revision of the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders is that of subsuming all of the ICD-10 categories of F45.0–F45.9 and F48.0 under a single category with the proposed name of “Bodily distress disorder” (BDD).

For ICD-11-PHC (the abridged version of ICD for use in primary care and low resource settings), it is also the intention not to retain the primary care disorder category F48 Neurasthenia.

Here are the references for the primary care version:

International Psychiatry, Issue 1 Feb 2011, Royal College of Psychiatrists

Page1: Box 1 The 26 conditions included in ICD10-PHC

F45 Unexplained somatic complaints*
F48 Neurasthenia*

*Not to be included in ICD11-PHC

Neurasthenia Box 1

See also:

Goldberg DP. Comparison between ICD and DSM diagnostic systems for mental disorders.
In: Sorel E, ed. 21st Century Global Mental Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012:37-53.
Sample Chapter 2: http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449627874/Chapter2.pdf
Publication date: August, 2012: http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9781449627874/

See Page 51: Table 2.5 The 28 Disorders Proposed for ICD11-PHC

Note: If you compare the list of proposed disorders for the ICD-11 primary care version, as listed in the February 2011 International Psychiatry article (on Page 2, Box 2 The 28 disorders to be field tested for ICD11-PHC), with Table 2.5, above, you will note that some proposed disorder names, disorder groupings and disorder group headings have been revised since the article in International Psychiatry. Prof Goldberg has clarified that the iteration published in the sample book chapter was the more recent of the two, cf:

February 2011 iteration:

Body distress disorders

16 Bodily distress syndrome (new – was unexplained somatic complaints)
17 Health preoccupation (new)
18 Conversion disorder (was dissociative disorder)


Sample chapter (2012) iteration:

Body distress disorders

15 Bodily stress syndrome
16 Acute stress reaction
17 Dissociative disorder
18 Self-harm

This list of disorder proposals and groupings may have undergone further revision since publication of 21st Century Global Mental Health. But no progress reports have emerged on behalf of the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) setting out more recent proposals for their “Bodily stress syndrome” construct since the Lam et al (July 2012) paper [1].

The disorder term and construct that is entered into the ICD-11 Beta draft and defined with three severities, is the S3DWG group’s conceptually different, but similarly named construct, Bodily distress disorder (BDD).

The ICD-11 S3DWG group is advising ICD Revision in parallel with the PCCG on a potential replacement for the ICD-10 Somatoform disorders.

It is the case, however, that some professional and consumer stakeholders are unaware that are two groups advising on the revision of the Somatoform disorders, that there have been two sets of proposals presented, or how they differ in conceptualization.

Four revised definition texts were submitted to the Proposals List on behalf of Mental Health TAG for “Bodily distress disorder (BDD)” on January 9–11, which will be the subject of a future post.


Further evidence of intention for Neurasthenia and ICD-11

In mid 2012, Neurasthenia was removed from the ICD-11 Beta draft and subsumed (along with the F45.0–F45.9 category terms) by the S3DWG’s new single diagnostic category, “Bodily distress disorder.”

However, a couple of redundant listings for Neurasthenia as an exclusion term remained in the Beta draft as legacy text from ICD-10, under Exclusions to Fatigue (Symptoms and signs chapter) and Generalized anxiety disorder (Mental and behavioural disorders chapter).

The deletion of Neurasthenia as an exclusion term to Fatigue has now been attended to.

The following proposal has been submitted via the Proposals facility on behalf of Mental Health TAG to address the legacy listing that remains under Generalized anxiety disorder and this provides additional and contemporary evidence of intention not to retain Neurasthenia as a disorder term for ICD-11:

Proposals List

Content Enhancement Proposal

Exclusion to Generalized anxiety disorder



Neurasthenia is not recommended for retention as a disorder category in ICD-11. Therefore, this exclusion term is not longer necessary.

–On behalf of Mental Health TAG

Geoffrey Reed 2015-Jan-09 – 10:09 UTC


If the concept is not retained in ICD-11, then the concept would be marked as obsolete rather than deleted. Thank you!

M. Meri Robinson Nicol 2015-Jan-26 – 13:14 UTC



1 Lam TP, Goldberg DP, Dowell AC, Fortes S, Mbatia JK, Minhas FA, Klinkman MS: Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract Feb 2013 [Epub ahead of print July 2012]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843638. Full free text: http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/76.long

ICD-11 Mental Health TAG opposes inclusion of “Functional clinical forms of the nervous system” under neurological conditions

Post #318 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-42P

Update: In September, a series of ICD-11 Symposia were held at the World Psychiatric Association XVI World Congress, in Madrid. These included Symposium Code SY469: Proposals and evidence for the ICD-11 classification of dissociative disorders, the abstract for which can be found here (pages 354-355).

Update: For those registered for enhanced access to the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, there are some recent proposals on behalf of Mental Health TAG for the Dissociative disorders block, here.


As previously posted:

In my September post, Briefing paper on ICD-11 and PVFS, ME and CFS: Part 2, I reported on a proposal by the ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group (TAG) for Neurology for the inclusion of a disorder group termed, “Functional clinical forms of the nervous system,” under Neurological conditions.

Under this new parent class, it has been proposed to locate a list of “functional disorders” (Functional paralysis or weakness; Functional sensory disorder; Functional movement disorder; Functional gait disorder; Functional cognitive disorder, Functional visual loss etc.).

In ICD-10, these conditions are accommodated under the Chapter V F44 Dissociative [conversion] disorders section.

In DSM-5, they are classified under “Conversion Disorder (Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder),” which is one of several categories that sit under the DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders” section. They are cross-walked to ICD-10-CM’s F44.4 to F44.7 codes, depending on the symptom type.

The rationale for this proposed new parent class is set out in this recent paper by Stone et al:

Functional disorders in the Neurology section of ICD-11: A landmark opportunity

Jon Stone, FRCP, Mark Hallett, MD, Alan Carson, FRCPsych, Donna Bergen, MD and Raad Shakir, FRCP*

Neurology December 9, 2014 vol. 83 no. 24 2299-2301

doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001063

Full free text

Full free PDF

*Raad Shakir chairs the Topic Advisory Group for Neurology

See also (full paper behind paywall):

Functional neurological disorders: The neurological assessment as treatment. Stone J. Neurophysiol Clin. 2014 Oct;44(4):363-73 Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25306077


Opposition from Mental Health TAG

If you are registered for increased access to the public version of the Beta drafting platform, you can read the response from Mental Health TAG, here.

If you are not registered, see below:

Proposal for Deletion of the Entity

Functional clinical forms of the nervous system

Proposal Status: Submitted


Definition does not exist for this content


This grouping should be deleted.

These are by definition not neurological conditions, as indicated by the phrase included in the definitions provided: ‘in which there is positive evidence of either internal inconsistency or incongruity with other neurological disorders’. If there is no evidence of a neurological mechanism or etiology, the rationale for including these in the classification of neurological disorders is unclear to say the least.

In contrast, these have always been viewed as mental disorders (from the days of Sigmund Freud), and there is no evidence about their etiology or mechanism that is inconsistent with that formulation.

Prior to ICD-10, these conditions were conceptualized as Conversion Disorders. This terms is considered obsolete because it refers to a psychodynamic mechanism that is theoretical and not ideally descriptive. ICD-10 offered a transitional title, calling them Dissociative [conversion] disorders.

For ICD-11, the proposals for Mental and Behavioural Disorders refer to these as Dissociative disorders, dropping the ‘Conversion’ part of the term. Dissociative disorders are defined descriptively, as ‘characterized by disruption or discontinuity in the normal integration of memories of the past, awareness of identity, immediate sensations, and control over bodily movements that are not better explained by another mental and behavioural disorder, are not due to the direct effects of a substance or medication, and are not due to a neurological condition, sleep-wake disorder, or other disorder or disease. This disruption or discontinuity may be complete, but is more commonly partial, and can vary from day to day or even from hour to hour.’ There is not basis for suggesting that this formulation is inconsistent with the phenomena proposed for inclusion here as ‘Functional clinical forms of the nervous system’.

The fact that neurologists may be asked to evaluate these conditions is not an adequate rationale for defining them as neurological disorders, nor are concerns about reimbursement policies that are unwisely based on divisions among specialists’ scope of practice based on ICD chapters.

The Mental Health TAG is aware that there is a vocal group of advocates for this terminology among neurologists. In fact, this terminology was included as alternate terminology in DSM-5. However, in DSM-5, these are still very clearly classified as Mental disorders.

Similarly, these terms can be added as inclusion terms to the equivalent categories in the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter.

In spite of its popularity among at least some neurologists, this terminology is currently viewed in psychiatry as obsolete, and based on a mind-body split (division between ‘organic’ and ‘non-organic’) we are elsewhere attempting to remove from the ICD-11. The implied contrast is between a ‘real’ (medical) disorder and a ‘functional’ (psychiatric) disorder.

A further problem with this terminology is its inconsistency with WHO’s official policy use of terminology related to ‘functioning’ (function, functional), as defined in the ICF.

In some instances of the use of the term ‘functional’ in other parts of proposals for ICD-11, it is not clear that the proposals use the term ‘functional’ in this same sense, or if they mean something close to ‘idiopathic’. However, it is quite clear that what is meant in this group of proposals is ‘without neurological explanation or plausible or demonstrable etiology’.

However, this terminology is in any case problematic. In addition to requesting that this group of categories be deleted from the classification and instead integrated appropriately as inclusion terms in the chapter on Mental and Behavioural Disorders, the Mental Health TAG requests that the Classifications Team examine other uses of the term ‘functional’ in proposals for ICD-11 and consider either appropriate parenting in Mental and behavioural disorders or alternative terminology.

The Mental Health TAG also requests that this issue be revised by the Revision Steering Group (and or Small Executive Group) in order to arrive at an ICD-wide solution as efficiently as possible. The Mental Health TAG requests that this issue not simply be arbitrated by the same TAGs that have made these proposals.

–On behalf of Mental Health TAG


There are no references attached for this proposal item

Comments on this proposal


The Mental Health TAG also requests that this issue be revised by the Revision Steering Group (and or Small Executive Group) in order to arrive at an ICD-wide solution as efficiently as possible. The Mental Health TAG requests that this issue not simply be arbitrated by the same TAGs that have made these proposals.

–On behalf of the Mental Health TAG
Geoffrey Reed 2015-Jan-10 – 23:10



An alternative could be that this grouping could be retained but with appropriate primary parenting to Dissociative disorders in the Mental and behavioural disorders chapter.

Entities of ‘functional clinical forms’ have already been proposed to be added in the appropriate categories in Dissociative disorders. Most of them are included in Dissociative motor disorder, though several are included in Dissociative disorder of sensation. One is included in dissociative amnesia.

However, the name of these entries – i.e., functional disorders – remains an issue as described above, which should be resolved at the ICD-wide level.

Note that if the solution selected involved retaining these categories, perhaps renamed, but primary parenting them appropriately in Dissociative disorders, it will be more appropriate to move the secondary parented categories to the main Disease of the nervous system chapter rather than listing them in clinical forms.

–On behalf of the Mental Health TAG
Geoffrey Reed 2015-Jan-12 – 09:14 UTC


I will update if further comment is uploaded on behalf of the Mental Health TAG, the Neurology TAG, ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, the WHO classification experts etc.


Note for stakeholders with an interest in the ICD-10 G93.3 categories: There is currently no inclusion within any chapter of the ICD-11 Beta draft for a specific parent class for “Functional somatic syndromes,” or “Functional somatic disorders” or “interface disorders” under which, conceivably, those who consider CFS, ME, IBS, FM et al to be speciality driven manifestations of a similar underlying functional disorder might be keen to see these terms aggregated.

On July 24, 2014, ICD Revision’s Dr Geoffrey Reed stated there has been no proposal and no intention to include ME or other conditions such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome in the classification of mental disorders.

%d bloggers like this: