Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

June 28, 2019 by

Post #354 Shortlink: https://wp.me/pKrrB-4IQ

The ICD-10 “Blue Book” and “Green Book”

In the World Health Organization’s ICD-10 Tabular List there are no disease or disorder descriptions, criteria or diagnostic guidelines in any chapters other than the brief description texts for disorders coded within Chapter V Mental and behavioural disorders.

The WHO describes these brief description texts as suitable for use by coders or clerical workers and to serve as a reference point for compatibility with other classifications. These brief texts are not recommended for use by mental health professionals.

Two companion publications were developed for use with ICD-10’s Chapter V which expand on these brief texts and provide clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. These publications are available as license free downloads:

The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (aka the “Blue Book”) intended for mental health professionals for general clinical, educational and service use:​

Click to access bluebook.pdf

 

The ICD-10 Diagnostic criteria for research (aka the “Green Book”) produced for research purposes and designed to be used in conjunction with the Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines “Blue Book”:

Click to access GRNBOOK.pdf

 

A survey of nearly 5,000 psychiatrists in 44 countries sponsored by the WHO and the World Psychiatric Association found that 70% of respondents mostly used the ICD-10 classification system in their daily clinical work compared to 23% of practitioners primarily using the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV [1].

 

ICD-11 and the CDDG

For ICD-11, the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has developed the “Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) for ICD‐11 Mental, Behavioural and Neurodevelopmental Disorders.”

The CDDG provides expanded clinical descriptions, essential (required) features, boundaries with other disorders and normality, differential diagnoses, additional features, culture-related features and codes for all mental and behavioural disorders commonly encountered in clinical psychiatry; it is intended for mental health professionals and for general clinical, educational and service use.

The CDDG does not provide diagnostic criteria. The essential features are less rigid than DSM-5’s criteria sets and allow practitioners more flexibility to use clinical discretion when making a diagnosis.

 

CDDG review process

The CDDG review process has been undertaken via the Global Clinical Practice Network.

Qualified clinicians who signed up to participate in the CDDG guideline review process have been able to review and provide feedback on the draft content. No draft texts have been made available for public stakeholder scrutiny and comment and I have not had access, for example, to the most recent draft for the clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder.

This paper in the February 2019 edition of World Psychiatry (Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders) describes major changes to the structure of the ICD‐11 classification of mental disorders as compared to ICD‐10; discusses new categories added for ICD‐11 and presents rationales for their inclusion; and describes important changes that have been made in each ICD‐11 disorder grouping [2].

What the paper does not give is a firm release date for the CDDG — stating only that the WHO will publish the CDDG as soon as possible following approval of the overall system by the World Health Assembly (WHA).

Member states approved the draft resolution to adopt ICD-11 at the 72nd World Health Assembly, in May 2019. Endorsement takes effect from January 01, 2022, which is the earliest date from which member states can begin reporting data using the new ICD-11 code sets.

Extract from Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders:

Disorders of bodily distress and bodily experience

ICD‐11 disorders of bodily distress and bodily experience encompass two disorders: bodily distress disorder and body integrity dysphoria. ICD‐11 bodily distress disorder replaces ICD‐10 somatoform disorders and also includes the concept of ICD‐10 neurasthenia. ICD‐10 hypochondriasis is not included and instead is reassigned to the OCRD [Ed: Obsessive‐compulsive and related disorders] grouping.

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by the presence of bodily symptoms that are distressing to the individual and an excessive attention directed toward the symptoms, which may be manifest by repeated contact with health care providers69. The disorder is conceptualized as existing on a continuum of severity and can be qualified accordingly (mild, moderate or severe) depending on the impact on functioning. Importantly, bodily distress disorder is defined according to the presence of essential features, such as distress and excessive thoughts and behaviours, rather than on the basis of absent medical explanations for bothersome symptoms, as in ICD‐10 somatoform disorders.

*Embedded links to the ICD-11 Orange Maintenance Platform disorder descriptions are not included in the paper.

DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder is listed under Synonyms to ICD-11’s Bodily distress disorder and indexed to 6C20.Z Bodily distress disorder, unspecified.

The CDDG is expected to be published as a licence free download. When the WHO has released the CDDG, I will update this post.

 

This Letter to the Editor published in the June 2019 edition of World Psychiatry (Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD-11 chapters related to mental and sexual health) summarizes common themes of the submissions for the mental disorder categories that generated the greatest response [3].

Extract:

A majority of submissions regarding bodily distress disorder were critical, but were often made by the same individuals (N=8). Criticism mainly focused on conceptualization (48%; κ=0.64) and the disorder name (43%; κ=0.91). Use of a diagnostic term that is closely associated with the differently conceptualized bodily distress syndrome5 was seen as problematic. One criticism was that the definition relies too heavily on the subjective clinical decision that patients’ attention directed towards bodily symptoms is “excessive”. A number of comments (17%; κ=0.62) expressed concern that this would lead to patients being classified as mentally disordered and preclude them from receiving appropriate biologically-oriented care. Some contributors submitted proposals for changes to the definition (30%; κ=0.89). Others opposed inclusion of the disorder altogether (26%; κ=0.88), while no submission (κ=1) expressed support for inclusion. The WHO decided to retain bodily distress disorder as a diagnostic category6 and addressed concerns by requiring in the CDDG the presence of additional features, such as significant functional impairment.

 

Note: “Use of a diagnostic term that is closely associated with the differently conceptualized bodily distress syndrome5 was seen as problematic.”

Whilst it is welcomed that this specific concern has been acknowledged within this Letter to the Editor, I have drawn to the authors’ attention that WHO/ICD Revision has repeatedly failed to respond to requests to provide a rationale for its re-purposing of a diagnostic term that is already strongly associated with the Fink et al (2010) Bodily distress syndrome*, despite provision of examples from the literature clearly demonstrating that these two terms have been used interchangeably by researchers and practitioners, since 2007 [4].

The potential for confusion and conflation of these differently conceptualized disorder constructs was acknowledged by the WHO’s Dr Geoffrey Reed, in 2015. However, there has been no discussion of this potential in any of the S3DWG working group’s progress reports and field trial evaluations. If the WHO is not willing to reconsider and remedy this problem, there is the expectation that a rationale for going forward with the Bodily distress disorder term is provided for clinical and public stakeholders.

*Operationalized in Denmark and beyond, BDS is differently conceptualized to ICD-11’s BDD diagnostic construct: BDS has very different criteria/essential features, based on physical symptom patterns or clusters from organ systems; psychobehavioural responses to symptoms do not form part of the BDS criteria; BDS requires the symptoms to be “medically unexplained”; is inclusive of a different patient population to ICD-11’s BDD, and crucially, is considered by its authors to capture myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, IBS and fibromyalgia patients under a single, unifying BDS diagnosis.

As an unprocessed proposal is currently under review with the CSAC/MSAC committees I have requested that earlier submissions, which were marked as rejected in February 2019 with no adequate rationale for dismissing the concerns raised within them, are reconsidered and that the WHO responds to three specific concerns:

a) its re-purposing of a disorder term already in use interchangeably for a differently conceptualized disorder construct;

b) the potential difficulties of maintaining disorder construct integrity within and beyond ICD-11 and the implications for clinical utility, data reporting and statistical analysis;

c) the requirement for adding exclusions under BDD for Concept Title 8E49 Postviral fatigue syndrome and its inclusion terms, to mitigate confusion/conflation with the Fink et al (2007, 2010) Bodily distress syndrome.

 

Bodily distress disorder in SNOMED CT

The SNOMED CT Concept term SCTID: 723916001: Bodily distress disorder was added to the July 2017 release of the SNOMED CT International Edition.

SNOMED International’s classification leads confirmed that the term had been added by the team working on the SNOMED CT and ICD-11 MMS Mapping Project as “an exact match for the ICD-11 term, Bodily distress disorder.”

In ICD-11, Bodily distress disorder has specifiers for three degrees of severity: Mild BDD; Moderate BDD; and Severe BDD, which are each assigned a unique code and a discrete description/characterization text.

It was submitted that including the three ICD-11 BDD severities might help clinicians and coders distinguish between the SNOMED CT/ICD-11 Bodily distress disorder concept term and the similarly named, but differently conceptualized, Bodily distress syndrome (Fink et al 2010), which has two severities.

A request for addition of the three BDD severities was submitted and approved in early 2018 and Mild BDD; Moderate BDD; and Severe BDD were added as three discretely coded for Children concepts for the July 2018 release of the International Edition and subsequently absorbed into the various national editions.

 

ICD-11 PHC

The ICD-11 CDDG should not be confused with the ICD-11 PHC.

Since 2012, I have been reporting on the parallel development of the ICD-11 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (ICD-11 PHC).

The ICD-11 PHC is a revision of the Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version. 1996.

ICD-11 PHC is a clinical tool written in simpler language to assist non-mental health specialists in primary care settings and non medically trained health workers, and also intended for use in low resource settings and in low- to middle-income countries.

It comprises 27 mental disorders considered to be most clinically relevant in primary care and low resource settings. (It is a misnomer to refer to the ICD-11 PHC as the “Primary Care version of ICD-11” since it contains just 27 mental disorders and no general medical diseases or conditions.)

It is important to note that like the ICD-10 PHC, this revised diagnostic and management guideline won’t be mandatory for use by member states, although the WHO hopes this revised edition will have greater clinical utility than the ICD-10 PHC (1996).

The WHO intends to make the ICD-11 PHC publication, once completed, free to download by anyone. There is currently no date available for its projected finalization or release.

The revision is the responsibility of the WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse advised by an external advisory group — the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) which is chaired by Prof Sir David Goldberg*; Vice-chairs: Dr Michael Klinkman and WHO’s, Dr Geoffrey Reed.

*Prof Sir David Goldberg also chaired the working group for the development of ICD-10 PHC (1996). Dr Michael Klinkman is a GP who represents WONCA (World Organization of Family Doctors) and current convenor of WONCA’s International Classification Committee (WICC) that is responsible for the development and update of the WHO endorsed, ICPC-2 (International Classification of Primary Care).

The full draft texts for the 27 mental disorder categories proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11 PHC have not been made available for public scrutiny, but a number of progress papers, field trial evaluations and presentations have been published since 2010 [5-8].

25 of the 27 mental disorder categories proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11 PHC have equivalence with mental disorder classes within the core ICD-11’s Chapter 06.

ICD-11 PHC is proposed to include a disorder category called “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” which replaces ICD-10 PHC’s “F45 Unexplained somatic complaints/medically unexplained symptoms” and “F48 Neurasthenia” categories.

This proposed “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” diagnosis has been adapted from the Fink et al (2010) Bodily distress syndrome (BDS). “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” does not have direct equivalence to a diagnostic construct in the core ICD-11.

The ICD-11 PHC’s “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS)” requires at least 3 persistent, medically unexplained symptoms, over time, of cardio-respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, or general symptoms of tiredness and exhaustion, that result in significant distress or impairment.

Under exclusions and differential diagnoses for BSS, certain psychiatric and general medical diagnoses have to be excluded but CFS, ME; IBS; and FM appear not to be specified as exclusions. So this (non mandatory) 27 mental disorder guideline needs very close scrutiny.

For the mandatory core ICD-11 classification, the WHO is going forward with the differently conceptualized, Bodily distress disorder (BDD), which has close alignment with DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder.*

*See: Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018.

 

If ICD-11 PHC goes forward with its proposed BSS category, there will be all these diagnostic constructs in play:

Somatic symptom disorder (DSM-5; under Synonyms to BDD in the core ICD-11)
Bodily distress disorder (core ICD-11; SNOMED CT)
Bodily stress syndrome (ICD-11 PHC guideline for 27 mental disorders)
Bodily distress syndrome (Fink et al 2010, operationalized in Denmark and beyond)

plus the existing ICD-10 and SNOMED CT Somatoform disorders categories and their equivalents in ICPC-2.

 

References:

1 Reed GM, Correia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M (2011). The WPA-WHO global survey of psychiatrists’ attitudes towards mental disorders classification. World Psychiatry, 10, 118–131. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00034.x

2 Reed GM, First MB, Kogan CS, et al. Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Psychiatry, 2019;18(1):3–19. doi:10.1002/wps.20611
Html: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/
PDF: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/pdf/WPS-18-3.pdf

3 Fuss J, Lemay K, Stein DJ, Briken P, Jakob R, Reed GM and Kogan CS. (2019). Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health. World Psychiatry, 18: 233-235. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20635

4 Chapman S. Proposal and rationale for Deletion of the Entity Bodily distress disorder. Proposal submitted via ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism, March 02, 2017.

5 T P Lam, D P Goldberg, A C Dowell, S Fortes, J K Mbatia, F A Minhas, M S Klinkman. Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study, Family Practice, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 76–87, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms037

6 MASTER PROTOCOL Depression, Anxiety and Somatic Symptoms in Global Primary Care Settings: A Field Study for the ICD-11-PHC Version 2 for WHO Research Ethics Review Committee.

Click to access WorldHealth14.pdf

7 Fortes, Sandra, Ziebold, Carolina, Reed, Geoffrey M, Robles-Garcia, Rebeca, Campos, Monica R, Reisdorfer, Emilene, Prado, Ricardo, Goldberg, David, Gask, Linda, & Mari, Jair J.. (2019). Studying ICD-11 Primary Health Care bodily stress syndrome in Brazil: do many functional disorders represent just one syndrome? Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 41(1), 15-21. Epub October 11, 2018.
Html: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0003
PDF: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v41n1/1516-4446-rbp-1516444620180003.pdf

8 Presentation: Rosendale, M (2017). MUS becomes Bodily Stress Syndrome in the ICD-11 for primary care

 

Resources:

Comparison of Classification and Terminology Systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Comparison of SSD, BDD, BDS, BSS in classification systems, Chapman & Dimmock, July 2018

Advertisement

Filed under Bodily distress disorder, Bodily distress syndrome, Bodily stress syndrome, CDDG, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Diagnostic classification, ICD-11, ICD-11 PHC, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), WHO (World Health Organization) Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

DSM-5 publication date May 22: American Psychiatric Association to release DSM-5 between May 18-22, San Francisco

April 16, 2013 by

Post #235 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2Lq

DSM-5 publication date May 22: American Psychiatric Association to release DSM-5 between May 18-22, San Francisco

After 14 years and with a staggering $25 million thrown at it, the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) will be launched during the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Annual Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-22, 2013.

The Bumper Book of Head Stuff has cost $25,000 a page.

“…ignore DSM 5. It is not official. It is not well done. It is not safe. Don’t buy it. Don’t use it. Don’t teach it.”

Commentary: “Does DSM 5 Have a Captive Audience?” Saving Normal, Allen Frances, MD

Further revisions and refinements to the criteria sets and disorder descriptions, following closure of the third and final stakeholder review and comment period (June 15, 2012) and the finalizing of texts in December and January, are embargoed and won’t be evident until the manual is released, next month.

Draft proposals, as they had stood on the DSM-5 Development site for the third stakeholder review, were removed from the APA’s website last November. Additional pages archiving draft proposals for DSM-5 Development internal use which remained publicly accessible were put behind a webmaster log in, around mid March.

(No drafts of the expanded texts that accompany the disorder sections and categories have been available for public scrutiny at any stage in the drafting process.)

The official publication date for DSM-5 is May 22 for the U.S. (May 31 for UK). The manual is 1000 pages and costs nearly $200 for the hardcover edition. An electronic version of the DSM-5 is understood to be in development for later this year.

According to this December 1 interview with Task Force Chair, David J Kupfer, MD, for the Washingtonian,

…While it will likely be some time before we can expect a DSM-6, it may only be a few years until a DSM-5.1 or -5.2, thanks to the expected digital version of the manual. “We don’t wait to wait another 19 to 20 years to have a new revision of the whole volume,” says Kupfer. “But if there is some unexpected consequence, which we can’t anticipate, we have an opportunity to fix something two to three years from now.”

A DSM-5 Table of Contents listing the new disorder sections and category names for DSM-5 (but not the criteria sets) can be accessed on this APA page.

Also at that URL – fact sheets, articles and videos for selected categories, which are being added to every few weeks (including justifications for some of the more controversial changes and new inclusions), and the following documents relating to the overall development process:

Insurance Implications of DSM-5 (New document)
Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 (updated April 5, 2013)
From Planning to Publication: Developing DSM-5
The Organization of DSM-5
The People Behind DSM-5

A number of books are publishing around the DSM-5 this April and May:

The Intelligent Clinician’s Guide to the DSM-5® by Joel Paris (Apr 17, 2013)

The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry by Gary Greenberg  (May 2, 2013) (also available as an Audio Book and Audio CD)

Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life by Allen Frances (May 14, 2013)

Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Responding to the Challenge of DSM-5 by Allen Frances MD (May 17, 2013)

Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies by Joel Paris and James Phillips (May 31, 2013)

Recent press releases

December 1, 2012: APA Release No. 12-43 American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees Approves DSM-5 (includes Attachment A: Select Decisions Made by APA Board of Trustees)

January 18, 2013: APA Release No. 13-06 DSM-5 Now Available for Preorder

February 28, 2013:  APA Release No. 13-11 APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-22; DSM-5 to be Released

April 9, 2013: APA Release No. 13-19 APA 2013 Annual Meeting Special Track to Present DSM-5 Changes

DSM and DSM-5 are registered trademarks of the American Psychiatric Association.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Conflicts of interest, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, Darrel Regier, David Kupfer, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 third draft, DSM-5 timeline Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting: May 18-22, 2013, San Francisco

November 16, 2012 by

American Psychiatric Association 166th Annual Meeting: May 18-22, 2013, San Francisco, CA

Post #209 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2wB

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has announced its 166th Annual Meeting, scheduled for May 18-22, 2013, San Francisco, CA.

REGISTRATION DATES

EARLY BIRD REGISTRATON

Member November 1, 2012 – January 24, 2013

Nonmember November 15, 2012 – January 24, 2013

ADVANCE REGISTRATION January 25 – April 19, 2013

ONSITE REGISTRATION April 20 – May 22, 2013

Meeting website

Scientific Program

Annual Meeting Information Guide   [9MB PDF at foot of this page]

Program Highlights Preview

(Described as roughly half of the scientific program with the full program to be posted when scheduling is complete) [Click on the image at foot of page to load 9 MB PDF or download PDF from this link PREVIEW]

The DSM-5 Track starts on Page 12 of the PDF. 

 

It is planned that the DSM-5 will be released at this meeting

APA President’s Message on DSM-5  [Video 5:52 mins]

APA President Dilip Jeste, MD discusses the final stages of DSM-5 development.

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, David Kupfer, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 field trials, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 timeline, DSM-V Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5’s Kupfer – but are they listening?

May 6, 2012 by

Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5’s Kupfer – but are they listening?

Post #166: Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-26L

Four further commentaries from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 field trial results and Kappa values:

major depressive disorder κ=0.30?…

May 6, 2012

a fork in the road…

May 7, 2012

Village Consumed by Deadly Storm…

May 8, 2012

box scores and kappa…

May 8, 2012

MedPage Today

Most DSM-5 Revisions Pass Field Trials

John Gever, Senior Editor | May 07, 2012

“…Darrel Regier, MD, the APA’s research director, explained that the trials were intended primarily to establish reliability – that different clinicians using the diagnostic criteria set forth in the proposed revisions would reach the same diagnosis for a given patient. The key reliability measure used in the academic center trials was the so-called intraclass kappa statistic, based on concordance of the “test-retest” results for each patient. It’s calculated from a complicated formula, but the essence is that a kappa value of 0.6 to 0.8 is considered excellent, 0.4 to 0.6 is good, and 0.2 to o.4 “may be acceptable.” Scores below 0.2 are flatly unacceptable.

Kappa values for the dozens of new and revised diagnoses tested ranged from near zero to 0.78. For most common disorders, kappa values from tests conducted in the academic centers were in the “good” range:

Bipolar disorder type I: 0.54
Schizophrenia: 0.46
Schizoaffective disorder: 0.50
Mild traumatic brain injury: 0.46
Borderline personality disorder: 0.58

In the “excellent” range were autism spectrum disorder [0.69], PTSD [0.67], ADHD [0.61], and the top prizewinner, major neurocognitive disorder [better known as dementia], at 0.78. But some fared less well. Criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, for example, came in with a kappa of 0.20. Major depressive disorder in children had a kappa value of 0.29. A major surprise was the 0.32 kappa value for major depressive disorder. The criteria were virtually unchanged from the version in DSM-IV, the current version, which also underwent field trials before they were published in 1994. The kappa value in those trials was 0.59.

But a comparison is not valid, Regier told MedPage Today…”

Read full report

DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.

Newsflash From APA Meeting: DSM 5 Has Flunked its Reliability Tests
Needs To Be Kept Back For Another Year

Allen J. Frances, M.D. | May 6, 2012

“…The results of the DSM 5 field trials are a disgrace to the field. For context, in previous DSM’s, a diagnosis had to have a kappa reliability of about 0.6 or above to be considered acceptable. A reliability of .2-4 has always been considered completely unacceptable, not much above chance agreement…”

Reconstructed from data published by A Frances, DSM 5 in Distress, Psychology Today, 05.06.12

“…No predetermined publication date justifies business as usual in the face of these terrible Field Trial results (which are even more striking since they were obtained in academic settings with trained and skilled interviewers, highly selected patients, and no time pressure. The results in real world settings would be much lower). Reliability this low for so many diagnoses gravely undermines the credibility of DSM 5 as a basis for administrative coding, treatment selection, and clinical research…”

Read full commentary

Scientific American

Field Tests for Revised Psychiatric Guide Reveal Reliability Problems for Two Major Diagnoses

Ferris Jabr | May 6, 2012

“…The kappa for generalized anxiety disorder was about 0.2 and the kappa for major depressive disorder was about 0.3.

“…These numbers are way too low according to the APA’s own scales—and they are much lower than kappas for the disorders in previous versions of the DSM. Regier and other members of the APA emphasized that field trial methodology for the latest edition is far more rigorous than in the past and that kappas for many diagnoses in earlier editions of the DSM were likely inflated. But that doesn’t change the fact that the APA has a problem on its hands: its own data suggests that some of the updated definitions are so flawed that only a minority of psychiatrists reach the same conclusions when using them on the same patient. And the APA has limited time to do something about it…”

“…Until the APA officially publishes the results of the field trials, nobody outside the association can complete a proper analysis. What I have seen so far has convinced me that the association should anticipate even stronger criticism than it has already weathered. In fairness, the APA has made changes to the drafts of the DSM-5 based on earlier critiques. But the drafts are only open to comment for another six weeks. And so far no one outside the APA has had access to the field trial data, which I have no doubt many researchers will seize and scour. I only hope that the flaws they uncover will make the APA look again—and look closer…”

Read full report

Psychiatric News | May 04, 2012
Volume 47 Number 9 page 1a-28
American Psychiatric Association
Professional News

DSM Field Trials Providing Ample Critical Data

David J. Kupfer, M.D.

This article is part a series of commentaries by the chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, which is overseeing the manual’s development. The series will continue until the release of DSM-5 in May 2013.

As of this month, the 12-month countdown to the release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) officially begins. While the developers of DSM-5 will continue to face several deadlines over the coming year, the progress that has been made since APA’s 2011 annual meeting has been nothing short of remarkable.

One of the most notable and talked-about recent activities of the DSM revision concerns the implementation and conclusion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, which were designed to study proposed changes to the manual…

Read on

From the same article and note that

“After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.”

Make Yourself Heard!

The DSM-5 Web site (www.dsm5.org) is open to a third and final round of feedback. For six weeks, patients and their loved ones, members of the profession, and the general public can submit questions and comments via the Web site. All will be read by members of the appropriate DSM-5 work groups.

A summary of changes made to the draft diagnostic criteria since the last comment period (May-July 2011) will help guide readers to important areas for review, but visitors are encouraged to comment on any aspect of DSM-5. After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.

Psychiatrists can use this important opportunity to express their opinions about proposed changes and how they may impact patient care. Since http://www.dsm5.org was first launched in February 2010, the work groups have discussed— and in many cases, implemented draft changes in response to—the feedback received from the site. This final comment period presents a historic opportunity for APA members to take part in the DSM-5 revision process and help impact the way in which psychiatric disorders are diagnosed and classified in the future.

David J. Kupfer, M.D., is chair of the DSM-5 Task Force and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic.

Commentary on Dr Kupfer’s report from 1 boring old man

self-evident…

I boring old man | May 6,  2012

Further commentary from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 controversy

not a good time…

1 boring old man | May 5, 2012

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-5 field trials, DSM-5 Petitions, DSM-5 third draft, DSM-5 timeline Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis Parts 1 and 2

April 27, 2012 by

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis, Parts 1 and 2

Post #161 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-248

Below, I am posting the Abstract and Introduction to Parts 1 and 2 of Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review “The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis.”

Part 1 of this Review was published on January 13, 2012; Part 2 was published (as a provisional PDF) on April 18, 2012. I will post Part 3 when it becomes available.

Below Parts 1 and 2, I have posted the PDFs for Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26 and Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75 out of which grew the concept for the Philos Ethics Humanit Med Review Parts 1 and 2.

This is an interesting series of exchanges which expand on conceptual and definitional issues discussed in these two Bulletins but these are quite lengthy documents, 29 and 30 pp, respectively; PDFs are provided rather than full texts.

Review Part One

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2012; 7: 3.
Published online 2012 January 13. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-3 PMCID: PMC3305603

Copyright ©2012 Phillips et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Received August 15, 2011; Accepted January 13, 2012.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

      The six most essential questions Part 1

or: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/pdf/1747-5341-7-3.pdf

Html: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305603/

or http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/3

James Phillips,corresponding author1 Allen Frances,2 Michael A Cerullo,3 John Chardavoyne,1 Hannah S Decker,4 Michael B First,5 Nassir Ghaemi,6 Gary Greenberg,7 Andrew C Hinderliter,8 Warren A Kinghorn,2,9 Steven G LoBello,10 Elliott B Martin,1 Aaron L Mishara,11 Joel Paris,12 Joseph M Pierre,13,14 Ronald W Pies,6,15 Harold A Pincus,5,16,17,18 Douglas Porter,19 Claire Pouncey,20 Michael A Schwartz,21 Thomas Szasz,15 Jerome C Wakefield,22,23 G Scott Waterman,24 Owen Whooley,25 and Peter Zachar10
 
1Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, 300 George St., Suite 901, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, 508 Fulton St., Durham, NC 27710, USA
3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA
4Department of History, University of Houston, 524 Agnes Arnold, Houston, 77204, USA
5Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Division of Clinical Phenomenology, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA
6Department of Psychiatry, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA
7Human Relations Counseling Service, 400 Bayonet Street Suite #202, New London, CT 06320, USA
8Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 4080 Foreign Languages Building, 707 S Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
9Duke Divinity School, Box 90968, Durham, NC 27708, USA
10Department of Psychology, Auburn University Montgomery, 7061 Senators Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117, USA
11Department of Clinical Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 325 North Wells Street, Chicago IL, 60654, USA
12Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry, SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, 4333 cote Ste. Catherine, Montreal H3T1E4 Quebec, Canada
13Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 760 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
14VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA
15Department of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 750 East Adams St., #343CWB, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
16Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA
17New York Presbyterian Hospital, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 09, New York, NY 10032, USA
18Rand Corporation, 1776 Main St Santa Monica, California 90401, USA
19Central City Behavioral Health Center, 2221 Philip Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, USA
20Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market Street, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
21Department of Psychiatry, Texas AMHSC College of Medicine, 4110 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78751, USA
22Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, New York, NY 10003, USA
23Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016, USA
24Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Given Courtyard N104, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA
25Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 112 Paterson St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

Abstract

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

General Introduction

This article has its own history, which is worth recounting to provide the context of its composition.

As reviewed by Regier and colleagues [1], DSM-5 was in the planning stage since 1999, with a publication date initially planned for 2010 (now rescheduled to 2013). The early work was published as a volume of six white papers, A Research Agenda for DSM-V [2] in 2002. In 2006 David Kupfer was appointed Chairman, and Darrel Regier Vice-Chairman, of the DSM-5 Task Force. Other members of the Task Force were appointed in 2007, and members of the various Work Groups in 2008.

From the beginning of the planning process the architects of DSM-5 recognized a number of problems with DSM-III and DSM-IV that warranted attention in the new manual. These problems are now well known and have received much discussion, but I will quote the summary provided by Regier and colleagues:

Over the past 30 years, there has been a continuous testing of multiple hypotheses that are inherent in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, from the third edition (DSM-III) to the fourth (DSM-IV)… The expectation of Robins and Guze was that each clinical syndrome described in the Feighner criteria, RDC, and DSM-III would ultimately be validated by its separation from other disorders, common clinical course, genetic aggregation in families, and further differentiation by future laboratory tests–which would now include anatomical and functional imaging, molecular genetics, pathophysiological variations, and neuropsychological testing. To the original validators Kendler added differential response to treatment, which could include both pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions… However, as these criteria have been tested in multiple epidemiological, clinical, and genetic studies through slightly revised DSM-III-R and DSM-IV editions, the lack of clear separation of these syndromes became apparent from the high levels of comorbidity that were reported… In addition, treatment response became less specific as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were found to be effective for a wide range of anxiety, mood, and eating disorders and atypical antipsychotics received indications for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and treatment-resistant major depression. More recently, it was found that a majority of patients with entry diagnoses of major depression in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study had significant anxiety symptoms, and this subgroup had a more severe clinical course and was less responsive to available treatments… Likewise, we have come to understand that we are unlikely to find single gene underpinnings for most mental disorders, which are more likely to have polygenetic vulnerabilities interacting with epigenetic factors (that switch genes on and off) and environmental exposures to produce disorders. [[2], pp. 645-646]

As the work of the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups moved forward, a controversy developed that involved Robert Spitzer and Allen Frances, Chairmen respectively of the DSM-III and DSM-IV Task Forces. The controversy began with Spitzer’s Letter to the Editor, “DSM-V: Open and Transparent,” on July 18, 2008 in Psychiatric Times [3], detailing his unsuccessful effort to obtain minutes of the DSM-5 Task Force meetings. In ensuing months Allen Frances joined him in an exchange with members of the Task Force. In a series of articles and blog postings in Psychiatric Times, Frances (at times with Spitzer) carried out a sustained critique of the DSM-5 work in which he focused both on issues of transparency and issues of process and content [4-16]. The latter involved the Task Force and Work Group efforts to address the problems of DSM-IV with changes that, in Frances’ opinion, were premature and not backed by current scientific evidence. These changes included new diagnoses such as mixed anxiety-depression, an expanded list of addictive disorders, the addition of subthreshold conditions such as Psychosis Risk Syndrome, and overly inclusive criteria sets – all destined, in Frances’ judgment, to expand the population of the mentally ill, with the inevitable consequence of increasing the number of false positive diagnoses and the attendant consequence of exposing individuals unnecessarily to potent psychotropic medications. The changes also included extensive dimensional measures to be used with minimal scientific foundation.

Frances pointed out that the NIMH was embarked on a major effort to upgrade the scientific foundation of psychiatric disorders (described below by Michael First), and that pending the results of that research effort in the coming years, we should for now mostly stick with the existing descriptive, categorical system, in full awareness of all its limitations. In brief, he has argued, we are not ready for the “paradigm shift” hoped for in the 2002 A Research Agenda.

We should note that as the DSM-5 Work Groups were being developed, the Task Force rejected a proposal in 2008 to add a Conceptual Issues Work Group [17] – well before Spitzer and Frances began their online critiques.

In the course of this debate over DSM-5 I proposed to Allen in early 2010 that we use the pages of the Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry (of which I am Editor) to expand and bring more voices into the discussion. This led to two issues of the Bulletin in 2010 devoted to conceptual issues in DSM-5 [18,19]. (Vol 17, No 1 of the AAPP Bulletin will be referred to as Bulletin 1, and Vol 17, No 2 will be referred to as Bulletin 2. Both are available at http://alien.dowling.edu/~cperring/aapp/bulletin.htm. webcite) Interest in this topic is reflected in the fact that the second Bulletin issue, with commentaries on Frances’ extended response in the first issue, and his responses to the commentaries, reached over 70,000 words.

Also in 2010, as Frances continued his critique through blog postings in Psychiatric Times, John Sadler and I began a series of regular, DSM-5 conceptual issues blogs in the same journal [20-33].

With the success of the Bulletin symposium, we approached the editor of PEHM, James Giordano, about using the pages of PEHM to continue the DSM-5 discussion under a different format, and with the goal of reaching a broader audience. The new format would be a series of “essential questions” for DSM-5, commentaries by a series of individuals (some of them commentators from the Bulletin issues, others making a first appearance in this article), and responses to the commentaries by Frances. Such is the origin of this article. (The general introduction, individual introductions, and conclusion are written by this author (JP), the responses by Allen Frances.

For this exercise we have distilled the wide-ranging discussions from the Bulletin issues into six questions, listed below with the format in which they were presented to commentators. (As explained below, the umpire metaphor in Question 1 is taken from Frances’ discussion in Bulletin 1.)…

Full document in PDF format

 

Review Part Two

(Note: Part Two was published on April 18, 2012 and addresses Questions 3 and 4. The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production. I will replace with the final version when available.)

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2012, 7:8 doi:10.1186/1747-5341-7-8

http://www.peh-med.com/content/7/1/8/abstract

Published: 18 April 2012

      The six most essential questions Part 2 Provisional

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

James Phillips, Allen Frances, Michael A Cerullo, John Chardavoyne, Hannah S Decker, Michael B First, Nassir Ghaemi, Gary Greenberg, Andrew C Hinderliter, Warren A Kinghorn, Steven G LoBello, Elliott B Martin, Aaron L Mishara, Joel Paris, Joseph M Pierre, Ronald W Pies, Harold A Pincus, Douglas Porter, Claire Pouncey, Michael A Schwartz, Thomas Szasz, Jerome C Wakefield, G Scott Waterman, Owen Whooley and Peter Zachar

Abstract (provisional)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances.

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

 

Symposium on DSM-5: Parts 1 and 2

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 1

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 1. Bulletin of the Association for the
Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(1):1–26

      Bulletin Vol 17 No 2

Phillips J (ed): Symposium on DSM-5: Part 2. Bulletin of the Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry 2010, 17(2):1–75

 

One focus for this site has been the monitoring of the various iterations towards the revision of the Somatoform Disorders categories of DSM-IV, for which radical reorganization of existing DSM categories and criteria is proposed.

As the DSM-5 Development site documentation currently stands (April 27, 2012), the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group (Chaired by Joel E. Dimsdale, M.D.) proposes to rename Somatoform Disorders to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and to fold a number of existing somatoform disorders together under a new rubric, which the Work Group proposes to call “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder.”

Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) would include the previous DSM-IV diagnoses of somatization disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], undifferentiated somatoform disorder [DSM IV code 300.81], hypochondriasis [DSM IV code 300.7], as well as some presentations of pain disorder [DSM IV code 307].

There is a more recently proposed, Simple Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSSD), which requires symptom duration of just one month, as opposed to the six months required to meet the CSSD criteria. There is also an Illness Anxiety Disorder (hypochondriasis without somatic symptoms); and a proposal to rename Conversion Disorder to Functional Neurological Disorder and possibly locate under Dissociative Disorders.

There is some commentary on the Somatoform Disorders in DSM-IV in this discussion from Bulletin 1:

Bulletin Vol 17 No 1, Page 19:

Doing No Harm: The Case Against Conservatism

G. Scott Waterman, M.D. David P. Curley, Ph.D.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont College of Medicine

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

Conflicts of interest and DSM-5: the media reaction; APA Rebuts Study on Autism and Christopher Lane On What’s Wrong With Modern Psychiatry

April 2, 2012 by

Conflicts of interest and DSM-5: the media reaction; APA Rebuts Study on Autism and Christopher Lane On What’s Wrong With Modern Psychiatry

Post #154 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-20T

Links for full text, PDF and further coverage following publication of the PloS Essay by Cosgrove and Krimsky:

March 17, 2012: DSM-5 controversies, Cosgrove and Krimsky on potential COIs, counter statement from APA’s John Oldham and APA May Annual Meeting preliminary program

March 14, 2012: Cosgrove, Sheldon: 69% of DSM-5 task force members report pharmaceutical industry ties – review identifies potential COIs

PLoS Blogs

Speaking of Medicine

Conflicts of interest and DSM-5: the media reaction

Clare Weaver | March 26, 2012

…Last week PLoS Medicine published an analysis by Lisa Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky, who examined the disclosure policy and the panel members’ conflicts of interest, and call for the APA to make changes to increase transparency before the manual’s publication.

Within three days of publication the paper had been viewed over 4000 times, and several major media outlets reported on the authors’ findings and the wider issues they relate to…

Read full post

Psychiatric Times

American Psychiatric Association Press Release No. 12-15: March 27, 2012

      Commentary Takes Issue with Criticism of New Autism Definition

APA Rebuts Study on Autism

DSM-5 Experts Call Study Flawed

Laurie Martin, Web Editor | 30 March 2012

In a recent commentary, the DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group responded to a study that challenges the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria on autism spectrum disorder (ASD).1 The commentary, published in the April issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), takes issue with the study by James McPartland and colleagues,2 and addresses what it deems “serious methodological flaws.”

The Work Group refutes the authors’ conclusions that the “Proposed DSM-5 criteria could substantially alter the composition of the autism spectrum. Revised criteria improve specificity but exclude a substantial portion of cognitively.” Dr McPartland and colleagues’ research study, titled Sensitivity and Specificity of Proposed DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, also states, “a more stringent diagnostic rubric holds significant public health ramifications regarding service eligibility and compatibility of historical and future research.” The study in question is also published in the April issue of JAACAP…

Read full article by Laurie Martin, Web Editor

Related material: American Psychiatric Association Press Release No. 12-03

      DSM-5 Proposed Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder Designed to Provide More Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment  January 20, 2012

The Sun Interview

March 2012

Side Effects May Include

Christopher Lane On What’s Wrong With Modern Psychiatry

by Arnie Cooper
The complete text of this selection is available in our print edition.

Six years ago Lane began to hear from his students at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, that many of them were on psychiatric drugs. They would come to his office to ask for extensions on their assignments, explaining that they were suffering from anxiety or depression but were on medication for it. He had just published Hatred and Civility: The Antisocial Life in Victorian England, for which he had studied the transition from Victorian psychiatry, out of which psychoanalysis was born, to contemporary psychiatry, with its intense focus on biomedicine and pharmacology. He was already skeptical about the emergence in 1980 of dozens of new mental disorders in the DSM-III, the third edition of the manual. Among these new ailments were the curious-sounding “social phobia” and “avoidant personality disorder.” Lane wanted to know how and why those new disorders had been approved for inclusion and whether they were really bona fide illnesses…

Read Arnie Cooper interview with Christopher Lane

Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Conflicts of interest, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, DSM revision process, DSM-5, DSM-5 consultation, DSM-5 draft proposals, DSM-5 in the media, DSM-5 timeline, DSM-V, Linda Cosgrove Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

%d bloggers like this: