New paper by Wolfe et al on reliability and validity of SSD diagnosis in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia

Post #295 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3LP

This post is an update to Post #284, November 17, 2013, titled:

Correspondence In Press in response to Dimsdale et al paper: Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM

In December 2013, Journal of Psychosomatic Research published four letters in response to the Dimsdale el al paper including concerns from Winfried Häuser and Frederick Wolfe for the reliability and validity of DSM-5’s new Somatic symptom disorder:  The somatic symptom disorder in DSM 5 risks mislabelling people with major medical diseases as mentally ill.

A new paper has been published by PLOS One on February 14, 2014:

Symptoms, the Nature of Fibromyalgia, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) Defined Mental Illness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia Frederick Wolfe, Brian T. Walitt, Robert S. Katz, Winfried Häuser

The paper is published under Open Access and includes the full SSD criteria in Table S1

The paper’s references include the following commentaries and an article by science writer, Michael Gross:

Frances A, Chapman S (2013) DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 47: 483–484. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484525 [PMID 23653063]

Frances A (2013) The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ: British Medical Journal 346. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580 [PMID 23511949]

Gross M (2013) Has the manual gone mental? Current biology 23: R295–R298. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009 Full text

Full paper, Tables and Figures in text or PDF format:

Symptoms, the Nature of Fibromyalgia, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 (DSM-5) Defined Mental Illness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Fibromyalgia Frederick Wolfe, Brian T. Walitt, Robert S. Katz, Winfried Häuser

Text version

PDF version

Abstract

Purpose

To describe and evaluate somatic symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and fibromyalgia, determine the relation between somatization syndromes and fibromyalgia, and evaluate symptom data in light of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 (DSM-5) criteria for somatic symptom disorder.

Methods

We administered the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), a measure of somatic symptom severity to 6,233 persons with fibromyalgia, RA, and osteoarthritis. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, and 15 represent low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity cut-points. A likely somatization syndrome was diagnosed when PHQ-15 score was ≥10. The intensity of fibromyalgia diagnostic symptoms was measured by the polysymptomatic distress (PSD) scale.

Results

26.4% of RA patients and 88.9% with fibromyalgia had PHQ-15 scores ≥10 compared with 9.3% in the general population. With each step-wise increase in PHQ-15 category, more abnormal mental and physical health status scores were observed. RA patients satisfying fibromyalgia criteria increased from 1.2% in the PHQ-15 low category to 88.9% in the high category. The sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-15≥10 for fibromyalgia diagnosis was 80.9% and 80.0% (correctly classified = 80.3%) compared with 84.3% and 93.7% (correctly classified = 91.7%) for the PSD scale. 51.4% of fibromyalgia patients and 14.8% with RA had fatigue, sleep or cognitive problems that were severe, continuous, and life-disturbing; and almost all fibromyalgia patients had severe impairments of function and quality of life.

Conclusions

All patients with fibromyalgia will satisfy the DSM-5 “A” criterion for distressing somatic symptoms, and most would seem to satisfy DSM-5 “B” criterion because symptom impact is life-disturbing or associated with substantial impairment of function and quality of life. But the “B” designation requires special knowledge that symptoms are “disproportionate” or “excessive,” something that is uncertain and controversial. The reliability and validity of DSM-5 criteria in this population is likely to be low.

 

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: ICD-11 Beta draft: Definition added for “Bodily distress disorder”

Post #291 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Gl

Update on February 2, 2014:

Since publishing my report, below, the Chapter 5 parent class:

“Bodily distress disorders, and psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere”

has been reverted by ICD-11 Revision to read, “Bodily distress disorders”.

The category, 5C70 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere [F54 in ICD-10], which had been, and remains listed as an Exclusion to class “Bodily distress disorders”, is now coded towards the end of the list of Chapter 5 Mental and behavioural disorders categories, rather than listed as a hierarchical child category under:

“Bodily distress disorders, and psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere”.

Note that the Definition and Inclusions for “5C70 Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere” are legacy text carried over from ICD-10. The Fxx codes listed under “Exclusions” for this category have not yet been updated to reflect the new ICD-11 coding structure.

This section of Chapter 5 now displays as in this screenshot, immediately below, when viewed in the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform Foundation View, at February, 2, 2014:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd11/browse/f/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1472866636

BDD at 02.02.14

A change also for Hypochondriasis – which has also been removed from under parent class, Bodily distress disorders, and is currently assigned dual parentage under: Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders; and Anxiety and fear-related disorders.

This means that the only categories currently coded under parent term “Bodily distress disorders” (previously, “Bodily distress disorders, and psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere”) are “Bodily distress disorder” and “Severe bodily distress disorder

Update on February 1, 2014:

In June 2013, Prof David Goldberg co-authored a paper: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) in Mental Health in Family Medicine. Co-author, Gabriel Ivbijaro, is Editor in Chief, Mental Health in Family Medicine and a past Chair of the Wonca Working Party on Mental Health. Mental Health in Family Medicine is the official journal of The World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) Working Party on Mental Health. I don’t have access to this paper, which is currently embargoed, but it should be free in PMC on June 1, 2014 [5].

+++
BDDJan_28_14

Screenshot: Chapter 5, ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, public version: January 29, 2014

+++

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

A definition for “Bodily distress disorder” has very recently been entered into the public version of the ICD-11 Beta drafting platform by ICD-11 Revision.

You can view the definition text, as it stands at January 29, in the public version of the Beta drafting platform, here:

Joint Linearization for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics view

Bodily distress disorder

Parent(s)

Bodily distress disorders, and psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere

Definition

Bodily distress disorder is characterized by high levels of preoccupation regarding bodily symptoms, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking, and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The most common symptoms include pain (including musculoskeletal and chest pains, backache, headaches), fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and respiratory symptoms, although patients may be preoccupied with any bodily symptoms. Bodily distress disorder most commonly involves multiple bodily symptoms, though some cases involve a single very bothersome symptom (usually pain or fatigue).

All Index Terms

  • Bodily distress disorder

Or here, in the Beta Foundation view

—————-

Only the ICD-11 Short (100 word) Definition for this proposed new ICD category has been inserted. At this point, no Inclusion Terms, Exclusions, Synonyms, Narrower Terms, Diagnostic Criteria or other potential Content Model descriptors have been populated.

No Definition or severity characteristics have yet been assigned to Severe bodily distress disorder to differentiate between the two coded severities: “Bodily distress disorder” and “Severe bodily distress disorder.” (Unique codes for a “Mild bodily distress disorder” and a “Moderate bodily distress disorder” were dropped in mid 2013.)

In order to place this development into context here are some notes:

It’s important to understand that there are two working groups reporting to the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders that are charged with making recommendations on the revision of the Somatoform Disorders for the primary care version and core version of ICD-11:

The 12 member Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) leads the development and field testing of the revision of all 28 mental and behavioural disorders for inclusion in the next ICD primary care classification (ICD-11-PHC), an abridged version of the core ICD classification. The PCCG is chaired by Prof Sir David Goldberg. Per Fink’s colleague, Marianne Rosendal, is a member of this group.

The 17 member Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG) is advising on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform Disorders. The S3DWG is chaired by Prof Oye Gureje. DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder work group member, Prof Francis Creed, is a member of this group.

In 2011, the Primary Care Consultation Group’s proposals for a replacement for the “Unexplained somatic symptoms/medically unexplained symptoms” category were put out for review and evaluation in primary care settings to nine  international focus groups* in seven countries [1].

*Austria, Brazil, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Pakistan, Tanzania and United Kingdom.

The PCCG anticipated refining their recommendations in the light of focus group responses before progressing to field testing the new disorder.

New disorders that survive the primary care field tests must have an equivalent disorder in the main ICD-11 classification.

Since any new primary care disorder concept will need to integrate into the ICD-11 core version, one might expect some cross-group collaboration between these two advisory committees.

But in their respective 2012 journal papers, the groups presented divergent constructs and neither group refers to the work being undertaken by the other group, or sets out how the two groups relate to each other, or how the primary care group relates to the overall revision process for the Somatoform Disorders.

The specific tasks of the S3DWG include, among others:

“3. To provide drafts of the content (e.g. definitions, descriptions, diagnostic guidelines) for somatic distress and dissociative disorder categories in line with the overall ICD revision requirements.

“4. To propose entities and descriptions that are needed for classification of somatic distress and dissociative disorders in different types of primary care settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.”

It is unclear how ICD-11 Revision is co-ordinating the input from the two groups, that is, will it be the PCCG’s revised recommendations that progress to field testing, this year, and if so, how would a divergent set of proposals, developed in parallel by the S3DWG group, relate to the field testing and to the overall revision of the SDs?

Or, will ICD-11 Revision require the PCCG group and the S3DWG group to agree on what to call any proposed, single disorder replacement for six or seven SD categories and to reach consensus over what construct, definition, characteristics and criteria will go forward to ICD-11 field testing, and if so, has consensus now been reached?

Field tests are expected to start this year. Currently, there is no publicly available information on the finalized characteristics, diagnostic guidelines, criteria, inclusions, exclusions, differential diagnoses etc. that are planned to be used for the field tests which would provide the level of detail lacking in this Beta draft definition.

It has been crafted with sufficient elasticity to allow either group’s construct to be shoehorned into it.

ICD-11 Revision is possibly hedging its bets depending on the outcome of its field tests. But the devil’s in the detail and without the detail, it isn’t clear whether this definition describes the construct favoured by the S3DWG in late 2012, or by the PCCG in mid 2012, or a more recent revision by one of the groups, or a compromise between the two.

The definition wording is based – in some places verbatim – on the construct descriptions presented in the Gureje, Creed (S3DWG) “Emerging themes…” paper, published in late 2012 [2].

Extract, Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2012:

“…At the time of preparing this review, a major highlight of the proposals of the S3DWG 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 a new name of ‘bodily distress disorder’ (BDD).

“In the proposal, BDD is defined as ‘A disorder characterized by high levels of preoccupation related to bodily symptoms or fear of having a physical illness with associated distress and impairment. The features include preoccupation with bothersome bodily symptoms and their significance, persistent fears of having or developing a serious illness or unreasonable conviction of having an undetected physical illness, unusually frequent or persistent medical help-seeking and avoidance of normal activities for fear of damaging the body. These features are sufficiently persistent and distressing to lead to impairment of functioning or frequent seeking of reassurance.'”

This 2012 paper goes on to say that the S3DWG’s emerging proposals specify a much simplified set of criteria for a diagnosis of Bodily distress disorder (BDD) that requires the presence of: 1. High levels of preoccupation with a persistent and bothersome bodily symptom or symptoms; or unreasonable fear, or conviction, of having an undetected physical illness; plus 2. The bodily symptom(s) or fears about illness are distressing and are associated with impairment of functioning.

And that in doing away with the “unreliable assumption of its causality” the diagnosis of BDD does not exclude the presence of depression or anxiety, or of a co-occurring physical health condition.

Which is a disorder construct into which DSM-5’s “Somatic Symptom Disorder” (SSD) could be integrated, thus facilitating harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5.

But without clarification from ICD-11 Revision (or further published papers, reports or sight of the field test protocol) I do not think one can safely extrapolate that it is the current proposals of the S3DWG group that are going forward to field testing, this year, in preference to a construct and criteria favoured by the PCCG group.

With the caveat that proposals by both groups are likely to have been modified since publication of their respective 2012 papers, or may have since converged into a consensus concept, to recap briefly:

In mid 2012, the Goldberg led PCCG primary care group was proposing a new term called “Bodily stress syndrome (BSS),” to replace ICD’s primary care category, “F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms.” This single BSS category would also absorb F48 Neurasthenia, which is proposed to be eliminated for ICD-11-PHC.

In late 2012, the S3DWG group was proposing to subsume the six ICD-10 categories F45.0 – F45.9, plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a single disorder category, but under the disorder name, “Bodily distress disorder” (BDD).

So at that point, the two groups differed on what term should be used for this new disorder.

The two group’s proposed constructs, criteria and exclusions also diverged, with the PCCG group incorporating characteristics of Fink et al’s “Bodily Distress Syndrome” [3] construct, and based on the “autonomic arousal” (or “over-arousal”) illness model, with symptom clusters or symptom patterns from one or more body systems, but also requiring some SSD-like psychobehavioural responses to meet the diagnosis. But, “If the symptoms are accounted for by a known physical disease this is not BSS.”

While the emerging proposals of the S3DWG group leaned more towards a “pure” DSM-5 SSD-like construct that could be diagnosed in patients with persistent “excessive” psychobehavioural responses to bodily symptoms in the presence of any diagnosed disease, patients with so-called “functional somatic syndromes” and patients with somatic symptoms of unclear etiology, but with no evident requirement for specific symptom counts, or for symptom clusters from one or more body systems or for the symptoms to be “medically unexplained.” [4]

What wasn’t explicitly set out in the PCCG’s 2012 paper was whether the group intended to mirror the Fink et al BDS construct to the extent of extending the diagnosis to be inclusive of the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” FM, CFS and IBS (which are currently discretely coded or indexed within ICD-10 in chapters outside the mental and behavioural disorders chapter).

This 2013 paper, below, interprets that it is the intention of the Primary Care Consultation Group to capture FM, CFS and IBS:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24295235

Free PDF: http://www.uam.es/becarios/jbarrada/papers/hads.pdf

Psychol Assess. 2013 Dec 2. [Epub ahead of print] Bifactor Analysis and Construct Validity of the HADS: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study in Fibromyalgia Patients. Luciano JV, Barrada JR, Aguado J, Osma J, García-Campayo J.

“[…] In the upcoming primary healthcare version of the ICD-11 (ICD-11-PHC), FM will be classified as part of bodily stress syndrome (BSS; Lam et al., 2013). This new diagnosis will group patients who might have previously been considered different (e.g., those with FM, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and so on). Frontline clinicians (e.g., GPs) will need reliable tools to identify possible/probable clinical cases of anxiety (i.e., cognitive over-arousal) among patients with BSS who are characterised by elevated somatic over-arousal…”

Prof Tony Dowell, New Zealand, is a member of the PPCG. In this slide presentation Prof Dowell lists IBS, Fibromylagia and CFS under “Bodily Stress Syndromes.” Prof Dowell is already promoting the use of the BSS construct, in New Zealand, despite its current lack of validation:

Slide presentation

Slide 29

Bodily Stress Syndromes

• Gastroenterology – IBS, Non ulcer dyspepsia
• Rheumatology – Fibromyalgia
• Cardiology – Non cardiac chest pain
• Respiratory – hyperventilation
• Dental – TMJ syndrome
• Neurology – ‘headache’
• Gynaecology – chronic pelvic pain
• Psychiatry – somatiform [sic] disorders
• Chronic fatigue Syndrome

Reading the responses of the focus groups, as reported in the Lam et al paper [1], it is evident that some focus group participants understood the proposed BSS construct as a diagnosis under which IBS, Fibromylagia and CFS patients could potentially be assigned; though one of the New Zealand focus groups noted there was quite a strong feeling that CFS did not fit the paradigm as well as other [FSS] disorders, particularly when there was a good history of preceding viral infection.

Whilst a number of diseases are listed in the PCCG criteria, as proposed in 2012, under “Differential diagnoses,” including multiple sclerosis, hyperparathyroidism, systemic lupus erythematosus and Lyme disease – IBS, Fibromylagia, CFS and ME are omitted from the list of “Differential diagnoses” examples.

In June 2013, Prof David Goldberg co-authored a paper: Bodily distress syndrome (BDS): the evolution from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) in Mental Health in Family Medicine. Co-author, Gabriel Ivbijaro, is Editor in Chief, Mental Health in Family Medicine and a past Chair of the Wonca Working Party on Mental Health. Mental Health in Family Medicine is the official journal of The World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) Working Party on Mental Health.

I don’t have access to this paper, which is currently embargoed, but it should be free in PMC on June 1, 2014 [5].

—————-

When viewing the Beta drafting platform, note that the descriptive text for the ICD-11 Beta draft parent term, “Bodily distress disorders, and psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases classified elsewhere,” which can be viewed here: ICD-11 Beta drafting platform Foundation view is the legacy text from the beginning of the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders section (compare in ICD-10 here):

This F45 section introduction text has not yet been revised to reflect the proposed dismantling and reorganization of the ICD-10 Somatoform Disorders section for ICD-11.

Caveat: The ICD-11 Beta draft is not a static document – it is a work in progress, subject to daily revisions and refinements and to approval by the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, the ICD-11 Revision Steering Group, and WHO classification experts. Proposals for some new or revised disorders may be subject to re-evaluation and revision following ICD-11 field testing.

References:

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 text behind paywall]

2. 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]

3. Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome

Per Fink and colleagues are lobbying for their “Bodily Distress Syndrome” (BDS) construct to be integrated into forthcoming classification systems and adopted as a diagnosis by primary care practitioners. They propose the reclassification of the somatoform disorders, pain disorder, neurasthenia and the so-called functional somatic syndromes, including fibromyalgia (FM), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), under a single, unifying diagnosis, “Bodily Distress Syndrome,” already in use in clinical and research settings in Denmark.

4. BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD unscrambled

5. 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. No abstract available. [PMID: 24427171] Currently embargoed: Free in PMC on June 1, 2014. PMC Archives

G Ivbijaro is Editor in Chief, Mental Health in Family Medicine and a past Chair of the Wonca Working Party on Mental Health. D Goldberg chairs the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) leading the development and field testing of the next ICD primary care classification (ICD-11-PHC).

6. General information on ICD-11 Field Tests:

2012 Annual Report of the International Union of Psychological Science to the American Psychological Association Revision of World Health Organization’s ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, Pierre L.-J. Ritchie, Ph.D, January, 2013, Pages 8-11
http://www.apa.org/international/outreach/icd-report-2012.pdf

WHO ICD Revision Information Note: Field Trials, 23 January 2013
http://informatics.mayo.edu/WHO/ICD11/collaboratory/attachments/255/15.Field_Trials.pdf

Clarification: Coalition for Diagnostic Rights website

Post #288 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Dn

Clarification: Coalition for Diagnostic Rights

A website called Coalition for Diagnostic Rights has recently been launched.

The site includes references to Suzy Chapman and to Dx Revision Watch.

Suzy Chapman/Dx Revision Watch is not associated with or affiliated to the Coalition for Diagnostic Rights website or with any registered or unregistered organization associated with that site, and has no responsibility for content published on that site, or published in the name of that site on other platforms.

Suzy Chapman
Dx Revision Watch

Omissions in commentary: “Diagnostic Ethics: Harms vs Benefits of Somatic Symptom Disorder”

Post #287 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3Ch

On December 16, Allen Frances, MD, who led the task force responsible for the development of DSM-IV, published a new commentary at Huffington Post titled: Diagnostic Ethics: Harms vs Benefits of Somatic Symptom Disorder.

This commentary is also published at Saving Normal (hosted by Psychology Today) under the title: Diagnostic Ethics: Harms/Benefits- Somatic Symptom Disorder: Advice to ICD 11-don’t repeat DSM 5 mistakes.

There are a two important oversights in this commentary around ICD and DSM-5’s controversial new diagnostic category, Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD).

Dr Frances writes:

“…The DSM-5 damage is done and will not be quickly undone. The arena now shifts to the International Classification of Diseases 11 which is currently being prepared by the World Health Organization and is due to be published in 2016. The open question is whether ICD 11 will mindlessly repeat the mistakes of DSM-5 or will it correct them?”

But Dr Frances omits to inform his readers that in September, a proposal was snuck into the Diagnosis Agenda for the fall meeting of the NCHS/CMS ICD-9-CM Coordination and Management Committee to insert Somatic Symptom Disorder as an inclusion term into the U.S.’s forthcoming ICD-10-CM*.

*ICD-10-CM has been adapted by NCHS from the WHO’s ICD-10 and will replace ICD-9-CM as the U.S.’s official mandated code set, following implementation on October 1, 2014.

+++
A foot in the door of ICD

APA has been lobbying CDC, NCHS and CMS to include new DSM-5 terms in the ICD-10-CM.

If NCHS rubber stamps the addition of Somatic Symptom Disorder as an official codable diagnostic term within ICD-10-CM, it could leverage the future replacement of several existing ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders categories with this new, poorly validated, single diagnostic construct, bringing ICD-10-CM in line with DSM-5.

There are implications for ICD-11, too.

Once SSD is inserted into ICD-10-CM, the presence of this term within the U.S. adaptation of ICD-10 may make it easier for ICD-11 Revision Steering Group to justify the replacement of several existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories with a single, new ICD construct contrived to incorporate SSD-like characteristics and facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terms and diagnostic criteria.

Yet Dr Frances, so vocal since December 2012 on the perils of the new Somatic Symptom Disorder construct, has written nothing publicly about this move to insinuate the SSD term into ICD-10-CM and curiously, makes no mention of this important U.S. development in his latest commentary.

Emerging proposals for the Beta draft of ICD-11 do indeed demand close scrutiny. But U.S. professionals and patient groups need to be warned that insertion of Somatic Symptom Disorder into the forthcoming ICD-10-CM is currently under consideration by NCHS and to consider whether they are content to let this barrel through right under their noses and if not, and crucially, what courses of political action might be pursued to oppose this development.

+++
Only half the story

A second omission: Dr Frances’ commentary references the deliberations of the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (a 17 member group chaired by O Gureje) which published a paper, in late 2012, reviewing the classification of the somatoform disorders, as currently defined, and discussing the group’s emerging proposals for ICD-11 [1].

But as Dr Frances is aware, this is not the only working group that is making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders.

The WHO Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse has appointed a Primary Care Consultation group (PCCG) to lead the development of the revision of the mental and behavioural disorders for the ICD-11 primary care classification (known as the ICD-11-PHC), which is an abridged version of the core ICD classification.

The PCCG reports to the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders and comprises a 12 member group of primary care professionals and mental health specialists representing both developed and low and middle-income countries.

The group is chaired by Prof, Sir David Goldberg, professor emeritus at the Institute of Psychiatry, London (a WHO Collaborating Centre), who has a long association with WHO, Geneva, and with the development of primary care editions of ICD.

The PCCG members are: SWC Chan, AC Dowell, S Fortes, L Gask, D Goldberg (Chair), KS Jacob, M Klinkman (Vice Chair), TP Lam, JK Mbatia, FA Minhas, G Reed, and M Rosendal.

(Dr Reed is Senior Project Officer for the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders; Dr Klinkman is Chair, WONCA International Classification Committee; Dr Rosendal is a member of WONCA International Classification Committee.)

The PCCG has been charged with developing and field testing the full set of disorders for inclusion in ICD-11-PHC, in preparation for worldwide adoption. It is anticipated that for the next edition, 28 mental disorder categories commonly managed within primary care will be included.

For all new and revised disorders included in the next ICD Primary Care version there will need to be an equivalent disorder in the ICD-11 core classification and the two versions are being developed simultaneously.

The group will be field testing the replacement for ICD-10-PHC’s F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms over the next couple of years and multi-centre focus groups have already reviewed the PCCG‘s proposals [2].

+++
The PCCG’s alternative construct – a BDS/SSD mash-up

As set out in several previous Dx Revision Watch posts, according to its own 2012 paper, the Primary Care Consultation Group has proposed a new disorder category, tentatively named, in 2012, as “Bodily stress syndrome” (BSS) which differed in both name and construct to the emerging proposals of the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders.

So we have two working groups advising ICD-11 and two sets of proposals.

The defining characteristics of the PCCG’s proposed new disorder, Bodily stress syndrome (as set out in its 2012 paper), draw heavily on the characteristics, criteria and illness model for Per Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome – a divergent construct to SSD – onto which the PCCG has tacked a tokenistic nod towards selected of the psychobehavioural features that define DSM-5’s Somatic symptom disorder.

Whereas in late 2012, the emerging construct of the other working group advising on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders, the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, was much closer to a “pure” SSD construct.

Neither proposed construct may survive the ICD-11 field trials or ICD-11 Revision Steering Group approval.

Fink and colleagues (one of whom, M Rosendal, sits on the Primary Care Consultation Group) are determined to see their Bodily Distress Syndrome construct adopted by primary care clinicians, incorporated into new management guidelines and integrated into the revisions of several European classification systems.

Their aim is to replace ICD-10’s F45 somatoform disorders, pain disorder, neurasthenia (ICD-10 F48), and the so-called “functional somatic syndromes”: Fibromyalgia (ICD-10 M79.7), IBS (ICD-10 K58) and CFS (indexed to ICD-10 G93.3), with their own single, unifying “Bodily Distress Syndrome” diagnosis, a disorder construct that is already in use in research and clinical settings in Denmark.

It remains unknown whether the two groups making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders have since reached consensus over what disorder name, definition and criteria WHO intends to submit to international field testing over the next year or two.

It’s not yet clear whether this proposed new BDD/BSS/WHATEVER diagnosis for the ICD-11 primary care and core version construct will have greater congruency with DSM-5’s SSD, or with Fink et al’s already operationalized BDS, or would combine elements from both; nor is it known which patient populations the new ICD construct is intended to include and exclude.

(In its 2012 proposed criteria, the PCCG does not specify FM, IBS, CFS or ME as Exclusion terms or Differential diagnoses to its BSS diagnosis.)

If WHO Revision favours the field testing and progression of an SSD-like construct for ICD-11 there will be considerable implications for all patient populations with persistent diagnosed bodily symptoms or with persistent bodily symptoms for which a cause has yet to be established.

If WHO Revision favours the progression of a Fink et al BDS-like construct and illness model, such a construct would shaft patients with FM, IBS and CFS and some other so-called “functional somatic syndromes.”

But Dr Frances says nothing at all in his commentary about the deliberations of the Primary Care Consultation Group despite the potential impact the adoption of a Fink et al BDS-like disorder construct would have on the specific FM, IBS, CFS and ME classifications that are currently assigned discrete codes outside the mental disorder chapter of ICD-10.

In sum:

The proposal to insert SSD into the U.S.’s forthcoming ICD-10-CM needs sunlight, continued monitoring and opposition at the political level by professionals and advocacy groups. Exclusive focus on emerging proposals for ICD-11 obscures the September 2013 NCHS/CMS proposals for ICD-10-CM.

The deliberations of both working groups that are making recommendations for the revision of the Somatoform Disorders for the ICD-11 core and primary care versions demand equal scrutiny, monitoring and input by professional and advocacy organization stakeholders.

It is disconcerting that whilst several paragraphs in Dr Frances’ commentary are squandered on apologia for those who sit on expert working groups, these two crucial issues have been sidelined.

+++
References

1. 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]

2. 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 2012 Jul 28. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843638 [Full text behind paywall]

3. Further reading: BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD and ICD-11, unscrambled

4. ICD-9-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 18-19, 2013:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm

September meeting Diagnostic Agenda/Proposals document [PDF – 342 KB]:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/icd_topic_packet_sept_181913.pdf

Compiled by Suzy Chapman for Dx Revision Watch

ICD-11 December Round up #1

Post #286 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3AJ

“The current ICD Revision Process timeline foresees that the ICD is submitted to the WHA in 2015 May and could then be implemented…experience obtained thus far, however, suggests that this timeframe will be extremely tight for paying due diligence to the work especially in terms of: appropriate consultations with expert groups; communication and dissemination with stakeholders; and sufficient time for field testing in multiple countries and settings, and carrying out the resulting edits.”   B Üstün, September 2013

In this September posting, I reported that a further extension to the ICD-11 timeline is under consideration.

This document and this slide presentation (Slides 29 thru 35) indicate that ICD-11 Revision is failing to meet development targets.

In a review of progress made, current status and timelines (document Pages 5 thru 10), Dr Bedirhan Üstün, Coordinator, Classification, Terminology and Standards, World Health Organization, sets out the options for postponement and discusses whether submission of ICD-11 for World Health Assembly approval should be delayed until 2016, or possibly 2017.

I will update as further information on any decision to extend the timeline emerges.

+++
Round up of ICD-11 related materials:

Slide presentation: PDF format, mostly in German

58. GMDS-Jahrestagung, Lübeck, 1.-5.9.2013: Symposium, Medizinische, Klassificationen und Termiologien Vortrag Üstün und Jakob, 5.9.2013

ICD-11 Übersicht Üstün und Jakob

Slide presentation: Slideshare format, in English

Regional Conference of the International Society for Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology (ISAPP)

Diagnostic Classifications in the 21st Century: how can we capture developmental details Bedirhan Üstün, Coordinator, World Health Organization, November 24, 2013

Multisystem diseases and terms with multiple parents:

In 2010, ICD-11 Revision posted this Discussion Document: Multisystem Disorders, Aymé, Chalmers, Chute, Jakob.

The text sets out the feasibility, rationale for and possible scope of a new multisystem disorders chapter for ICD-11 for diseases that might belong to or affect multiple body systems.

A more recent working document (WHO ICD Revision Information Note, R Chalmers, MS docx editing format, dated 29 January 2013) updates the discussion and concludes that a majority of ICD Revision Topic Advisory Groups and experts did not agree with the recommendation to create a new Multisystem Disease Chapter for ICD-11 and that other options for accommodating diseases which straddle multiple chapters were being considered.

According to ICD-11 Beta drafting platform, the ICD-11 Foundation Component will allow for a single concept to be represented in a Multisystem Disease linearization and appear in more than one logically appropriate location. In the linearizations (e.g. Morbidity), a single concept has a single preferred location and references [to the term] from elsewhere [within the same chapter or within a different chapter] are greyed out but link to the preferred location.

For example, skin tumour is both a skin disease and a neoplasm and for ICD-11 is located under two chapters. Other diseases that are proposed to be assigned multiple parents include some eye diseases resulting from diabetes; tuberculosis meningitis (as both an infectious and a nervous system disease) and Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), currently proposed to be dual coded under Chapter 15 Diseases of the genitourinary system under parent term, Premenstrual tension syndrome but also listed under Chapter 5 Mental and behavioural disorders under Depressive disorders.

While previous versions of ICD did not support multiple inheritance, there are already over 450 terms with multiple parents within ICD-11.

Editorial commentary, ICD-11 Neurological disorders:

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry doi:10.1136/jnnp-2013-307093

The classification of neurological disorders in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11)

Sanjeev Rajakulendran¹, Tarun Dua², Melissa Harper², Raad Shakir¹

1 Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK; 2 Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Published Online First 18 November 2013 [Full text behind paywall]

Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24249782

Single page extract as image: http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2013/11/18/jnnp-2013-307093.extract

(If a single page text file fails to load at the above link, try pasting the editorial title into a search engine and access the page from the search engine link.)

Primary Care version of ICD-11 (ICD-11-PHC):

The ICD-10-PHC is an abridged version of the ICD-10 core classification for use in primary care and low resource settings. A new edition (ICD-11-PHC) is being developed simultaneously with the core ICD-11.

For all new and revised disorders included in the ICD-11 Primary Care version there will need to be an equivalent disorder in the ICD-11 core classification.

The Mental and behavioural disorders section of ICD-11-PHC is expected to list 28 mental and behavioural disorders most commonly managed within primary care settings, as opposed to over 400 disorders in Chapter 5 of the core version.

The following ICD-10-PHC disorders are proposed to be dropped for ICD-11-PHC:

F40 Phobic disorders; F42.2 Mixed anxiety and depression; F43 Adjustment disorder;
F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms; F48 Neurasthenia; Z63 Bereavement, Source [4].

A list of the 28 proposed disorders for ICD-11-PHC, as they stood in 2012*, can be found on Page 51 of Source [5].

*This list may have undergone revision since the source published.

A new disorder term “Anxious depression” is proposed to be field tested for inclusion in ICD-11-PHC and is discussed in this recent paper by Prof, Sir David Goldberg, who chairs the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) charged with the development of the primary care classification of mental and behavioural disorders for ICD-11:

Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.22206/abstract

Depression and Anxiety

DOI: 10.1002/da.22206

Review ANXIOUS FORMS OF DEPRESSION

David P. Goldberg

Article first published online: 27 NOV 2013 [Full text behind paywall]

There are further commentaries on the proposed new diagnoses of “anxious depression” and “bodily stress syndrome” in this 2012 paper:

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 2012 Jul 28. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843638 [Full text behind paywall]

According to this earlier paper, the Primary Care Consultation Group (PCCG) was still refining a construct and criteria for its proposed new disorder category, which the group had tentatively named as “Bodily stress syndrome” (BSS).

BSS would replace ICD-10-PHC’s Unexplained somatic symptoms and Neurasthenia categories and would be located under a new disorder group section heading called “Body distress disorders,” under which would sit three other discrete disorders. See Page 51 of Source [5].

The characteristics of new disorder 15: Bodily stress syndrome (as they appeared in the paper) might be described as a mash-up between selected of the psychobehavioural characteristics that define DSM-5’s new Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and selected of the characteristics and criteria for Fink et al’s Bodily Distress Syndrome – rather than a mirror or near mirror of one or the other.

In order to facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 mental and behavioural disorders, we might envisage pressure on the group to align with or accommodate DSM-5’s new Somatic symptom disorder within any framework proposed to replace the existing ICD Somatoform disorders.

But DSM-5’s SSD and Fink et al’s BDS are acknowledged by Creed, Henningsen and Fink as divergent constructs, so this presents the groups advising ICD Revision with a dilemma if they are also being influenced to recommend a BDS-like construct.

You can compare how these two constructs differ and appreciate why it may be proving difficult to convince ICD Revision of the utility of the PCCG’s BSS construct (and the potential for confusion where different constructs bear very similar names) in my table at the end of Page 1 of this Dx Revision Watch post:

BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD and ICD-11, unscrambled

Marianne Rosendal (member of the ICD-11 Primary Care Consultation Group; member of WONCA International Classification Committee), Fink and colleagues are eager to see their Bodily distress syndrome construct adopted by primary care clinicians and incorporated into management guidelines and revisions of European classification systems to replace ICD-10’s F45 somatoform disorders, pain disorder, neurasthenia (ICD-10 F48), and the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,”  Fibromyalgia (ICD-10 M79.7), IBS (ICD-10 K58) and CFS (indexed to ICD-10 G93.3). See graphics at end of post.

While Fink et al’s BDS construct seeks to capture somatoform disorders, pain disorder, neurasthenia and the so-called functional somatic syndromes under a single, unifying diagnosis, it is unclear from the 2012 Lam et al paper whether and how the so-called functional somatic syndromes are intended to fit into the Primary Care Consultation Group’s proposed ICD-11 framework.

While the paper does list some exclusions and differential diagnoses, it lists no specific exclusions or differential diagnoses for FM, IBS or CFS and it is silent on the matter of which of the so-called functional somatic syndromes the group’s proposed new BSS diagnosis might be intended to be inclusive of, or might intentionally or unintentionally capture.

Nor is it discussed within the paper what the implications would be for the future classification and chapter location of several currently discretely coded ICD-10 entities, if Bodily stress syndrome (or whatever new term might eventually be agreed upon) were intended to capture all or selected of FM, IBS, CFS and (B)ME – the sensitivities associated with any such proposal would not be lost on Prof Goldberg which possibly accounts for the lacunae in this paper.

Lack of consensus between the two groups advising ICD-11:

The second working group advising ICD-11 on the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders is the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

In late 2012, their emerging construct (also published behind a paywall) had considerably more in common with DSM-5’s SSD construct than with Fink et al’s BDS (see: BDS, BDDs, BSS, BDD and ICD-11, unscrambled).

But the S3DWG’s construct Bodily distress disorder (BDD) and Severe bodily distress disorder are yet to be defined and characterised in the public version of the ICD-11 Beta draft.

It remains unknown whether the two groups making recommendations for the revision of ICD-10’s Somatoform disorders have reached consensus over what definition and criteria WHO intends to field trial over the next year or two and what this proposed new diagnosis should be called; whether their proposed BDD/BSS/WHATEVER construct will have greater congruency with DSM-5’s SSD or with Fink et al’s BDS, or what patient populations this new ICD construct is intended to include and exclude.

The absence of information on proposals within the Beta draft, itself, and the lack of working group progress reports placed in the public domain presents considerable barriers for stakeholder comment on the intentions of these two groups and renders threadbare ICD-11’s claims to be an “open” and “transparent” and “inclusive” collaborative process.

Two further papers relating to “Medically unexplained symptoms,” “Bodily distress syndrome” and “Somatoform disorders”:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834313002533

General Hospital Psychiatry

Psychiatric–Medical Comorbidity

Is physical disease missed in patients with medically unexplained symptoms? A long-term follow-up of 120 patients diagnosed with bodily distress syndrome

Elisabeth Lundsgaard Skovenborg, B.Sc., Andreas Schröder, M.D., Ph.D.

The Research Clinic for Functional Disorders and Psychosomatics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark

Available online 22 October 2013 In Press, Corrected Proof [Full text behind paywall]

http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/2/1/99

Systematic Reviews 2013, 2:99 doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-99

Barriers to the diagnosis of somatoform disorders in primary care: protocol for a systematic review of the current status

Alexandra M Murray¹²*, Anne Toussaint¹², Astrid Althaus¹² and Bernd Löwe¹²

1 Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

2 University Hospital of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Schön Clinic Hamburg-Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany

Published: 8 November 2013

[Open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License]

Finally, brief summaries of selected of the workshops held at the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (EACLPP) 2012 Conference, including workshops on “functional disorders and syndromes” and “Bodily distress,” one of which included:

http://www.eaclpp-ecpr2012.dk/Home/DownloadWorkshop

“…brief presentations which describe the present state of the proposed changes to Primary care classifications (ICPC and ICD for primary care) (MR) and DSM-V and ICD-11 (FC).”

where presenter “MR” is Marianne Rosendal; “FC” is Francis Creed, member of the ICD-11 Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders (S3DWG).

Note: ICPC-2 used in primary care is also under revision.

Foreslået ny klassifikation (Suggested new classification, Fink et al): 

Source Figur 1: http://www.ugeskriftet.dk/LF/UFL/2010/24/pdf/VP02100057.pdf

Danish Journal paper Fink P

Fink: Proposed New Classification

+++
References

1. WHO considers further extension to ICD-11 development timeline

2. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities, Twenty-second Session 4-6 September 2013, Items for discussion and decision: Item 8 of the provisional agenda, 3 September 2013 Full document in PDF format

3. Slide presentation: ICD Revision: Where are we? What remains to be done? Shall we have ICD WHA submission in 2015 or later? Bedirhan Ustun, World Health Organization Classifications, Terminologies, Standards, ICD Revision: Quality Safety Meeting 2013, September 9-10, 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/ustunb/icd-2013-qs-tag-26027668

4. Goldberg, D. Guest editorial. A revised mental health classification for use in general medical settings: the ICD11–PHC 1. International Psychiatry, Page 1, February 2011. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/IPv8n1.pdf

5. 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. Free PDF, Sample Chapter Two: http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449627874/Chapter2.pdf

Compiled by Suzy Chapman for Dx Revision Watch

DSM-5 November Round up #1

Post #285 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3zQ

Recent documents issued by the American Psychiatric Association at DSM-5 Development

Coding Changes Update: Important Coding and Criteria Updates: UPDATED 11/22/13

APA Statement issued 10.31.13: Statement on DSM-5 Text Error Pedophilic disorder text error to be corrected

Text Corrections: DSM-5 Paraphilic Disorders 10/31/13

Criteria Update: Updates to DSM-5 Adjustment Disorders: 10/15/13

Coding Changes Update: Neurocognitive Disorders Coding Updates: UPDATED 10/18/13

Psychiatric News Article: ICD Codes for Some DSM-5 Diagnoses Updated, Mark Moran, 10/7/13

+++
Commentary, Dx Summit

Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome Was Not Actually Removed from DSM-5

by Sarah Kamens

Note from Dx Revision Watch: Here is another codable diagnosis slipped in by APA before going to press. Between closure of the third DSM-5 draft review and publication of the final code sets a “Brief somatic symptom disorder,” where duration of symptoms is less than 6 months, was added under new category, “Other specified Somatic Symptom and Related Disorder” cross-walked to ICD 300.89 (F45.8) [DSM-5, Page 327]. This “Other specified” category can be used for symptom presentations that do not meet the full criteria for any of the disorders in the Somatic symptom and related disorders diagnostic class.
This means that as little as a single, distressing physical symptom + just one psychobehavioural symptom from the Somatic symptom disorder “B type” criteria, with less than 6 months chronicity would meet criteria for a codable mental disorder. A “Brief illness anxiety disorder” diagnosis of less than 6 months duration has also been inserted under this code – neither of which were in the third draft.

+++
Commentary from Christopher Lane, Ph.D., at Side Effects, Psychology Today:

The OECD Warns on Antidepressant Overprescribing Antidepressant consumption not matched by an increase in global diagnoses

Christopher Lane | November 22, 2013

+++
Commentary by Athena Bryan for Brown Political Review:

A Tale of Two Codices: the DSM, ICD and Definition of Mental Illness in America

Athena Bryan | November 21, 2013

Note from Dx Revision Watch: I have added a comment to this article, noting that APA has proposed the following new DSM-5 disorders for inclusion in the forthcoming U.S. specific ICD-10-CM via the September 18-19, 2013 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee: Binge eating disorder (BED); Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD); Social (pragmatic) communication disorder; Hoarding disorder; Excoriation (skin picking) disorder; Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD); that DSM-5′s new constructs, Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder were also proposed for insertion into the ICD-10-CM Tabular List and Index; that the ICD-10-CM is a “clinical modification” of WHO’s ICD-10 and is scheduled for U.S. implementation in October 2014; that its development from the ICD-10 has been the responsibility of NCHS.

+++
Three DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder related items:

+++
Editorial British Journal of Psychiatry:

Editorial: Michael Sharpe, DSM-5 Somatic symptom disorder Work Group member BJP November 2013 203:320-321; doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.122523:

Editorial: Somatic symptoms: beyond ‘medically unexplained’

Abstract:

Somatic symptoms may be classified as either ‘medically explained’ or ‘medically unexplained’ – the former being considered medical and the latter psychiatric. In healthcare systems focused on disease, this distinction has pragmatic value. However, new scientific evidence and psychiatric classification urge a more integrated approach with important implications for psychiatry.

Note from Dx Revision Watch: Unless NCHS rejects the proposal submitted at the September 18-19, 2013 meeting of the ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee, Somatic symptom disorder is destined for insertion into the ICD-10-CM Tabular List under F45 Somatoform Disorders as an inclusion term to F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder and for adding to the Alphabetic Index. See http://wp.me/pKrrB-3×1.

+++
Slide presentation: Francis Creed, University of Manchester, UK:

Can we now explain medically unexplained symptoms?

Francis Creed | Exeter, June 13, 2013 | PDF format

or open PDF [1.5MB] here Creed June 2013 slide presentation

+++
Book chapter: Polypharmacy in Psychiatry Practice, Volume I: Multiple Medication Use Strategies:

Polypharmacy in Psychiatry Practice, Volume I: Multiple Medication Use Strategies, Ritsner, Michael S (Ed.) 2013, XVII, 287 p ISBN: 978-94-007-5804-9 (Print) 978-94-007-5805-6 (Online)

Chapter 11: Multiple Medication Use in Somatic Symptom Disorders: From Augmentation to Diminution Strategies  

Most of Chapter 11, Pages 243-254 (pp 247-249 omitted) can be previewed on Google Books here

%d bloggers like this: