DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders work group publishes SSD field trial data
July 30, 2013
Post #272 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3ke
Update: Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM. is now published in the September 2013 issue, J Psychosom Res. A subscription or payment is required to access this paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23972410
J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):223-8. Epub 2013 Jul 25.
Dimsdale JE, Creed F, Escobar J, Sharpe M, Wulsin L, Barsky A, Lee S, Irwin MR, Levenson J.
DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders work group publishes SSD field trial data…behind a paywall
Reports on the findings of the DSM-5 field trials have been slow to emerge.
Kappa results trickled out in dribs and drabs; work group chairs presented limited field trial data at the APA’s 2012 Annual Meeting. There remains a paucity of information on field trial study protocols, patient selection, field test results and analysis.
This is of particular concern where radical changes to DSM-IV definitions and criteria were introduced into DSM-5 and are now out there in the field.
A good example is the new DSM-5 “Somatic Symptom Disorder” category, where there is no substantial body of evidence for the reliability, validity, prevalence, safety, acceptability and clinical utility of the implementation of this new disorder construct – though that did not stop them barrelling it through to the final draft.
In its paper, the SSD Work Group acknowledges the “small amount of validity data concerning SSD”; that much “remains to be determined” about the utility and reliability of the specific SSD criteria and its thresholds when applied in busy, general clinical practice and that there are “vital questions that must be answered” as they go forward.
They don’t sound any too confident about what they’ve barrelled through; but neither do they seem overly concerned.
With remarkable insouciance, SSD Work Group Chair, Joel E Dimsdale, told ABC journalist, Susan Donaldson James, “…If it doesn’t work, we’ll fix it in the DSM-5.1 or DSM-6.” (ABC News, February 27, 2013).
The implementation of SSD in the DSM-5 is a Beta trial; the public – adults and children – unwitting guinea pigs.
Members of the DSM-5 Somatic Symptoms Disorders Work Group have just published a report – Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM.
APA owns the output of the DSM-5 work groups but this report isn’t posted on the APA’s DSM-5 Development site or on the Field Trials or DSM-5 Resources pages.
It’s being published (currently In Press) in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, for which DSM-5 SSD Work Group member, James Levenson, is a Co-Editor and for which SSD Work Group member, Francis Creed, a past Editor.
Unless you are a subscriber to JPS or have institution access you will need to cough up $30 to access this paper.
DSM-5 Task Force’s Regier and Kupfer have been banging on for years about how transparent the development process for this most recent iteration of the DSM has been. Yet reports on field trial findings and analysis of studies cited in support of the introduction of radical new constructs for DSM are stuffed behind paywalls.
Why are DSM-5 work group reports not being published on the DSM-5 Development website or other APA platforms or published in journals under Creative Commons Licenses, for ease of public accessibility, professional and consumer stakeholder scrutiny and discussion, and for accountability?
The development of ICD-11 is also being promoted by WHO’s Bedirhan Üstün as an open and transparent process.
But emerging proposals from the two working groups charged with making recommendations for revision of ICD-10′s Somatoform Disorders (the Primary Care Consultation Group, chaired by Prof Sir David Goldberg and the WHO Expert Working Group on Somatic Distress and Dissociative Disorders, chaired by Prof Oje Gureje) were also published, last year, in subscription journals and subject to those journals’ respective copyright restrictions [1] [2].
1. Lam TP et al. Proposed new diagnoses of anxious depression and bodily stress syndrome in ICD-11-PHC: an international focus group study. Fam Pract. 2013 Feb;30(1):76-87. [Abstract: PMID:22843638]
2. Creed F, Gureje O. Emerging themes in the revision of the classification of somatoform disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 2012;24:556-67. [Abstract: PMID: 23244611]
Why are ICD-11 working group progress reports on emerging proposals for potential new ICD disorders and focus group study reports not being published on platforms accessible, without payment, to all classes of ICD stakeholder?
The SSD Work Group paper is authored by Joel E Dimsdale (Chair), Francis Creed, Javier Escobar, Michael Sharpe, Lawson Wulsin, Arthur Barsky, Sing Lee, Michael R. Irwin and James Levenson.
[Although not a member of the SSD Work Group, Javier Escobar is Task Force liaison to the SSD work group and works closely with the group. Francis J Keefe (not included in the paper’s authors) is a member of the SSD Work Group. Nancy Frasure-Smith (not included in the paper’s authors) served as a member of the Work Group from 2007-2011 and was not replaced following withdrawal.]
The paper describes the DSM-5 Work Group’s rationale for the new SSD diagnosis (which replaces four DSM-IV categories); defines the construct, discusses field trial kappa data (inter-rater reliability), presents limited data for validity of SSD, clinical utility and potential prevalence rates, and briefly discusses tasks for future research, education and clinical practice.
July 2013, Vol. 75, No. 1
In Press
Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM
29 July 2013
Joel E. Dimsdale, Francis Creed, Javier Escobar, Michael Sharpe, Lawson Wulsin, Arthur Barsky, Sing Lee, Michael R. Irwin, James Levenson
Received 4 April 2013; received in revised form 27 June 2013; accepted 29 June 2013. published online 29 July 2013.
Corrected Proof
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.06.033
Abstract: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(13)00265-1/abstract [Free]
Full text: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(13)00265-1/fulltext [Paywall]
References: http://www.jpsychores.com/article/PIIS0022399913002651/references [Paywall]
Commentaries on Somatic Symptom Disorder in recent journal papers
In the June 2013 edition of Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the Task Force for DSM-IV, discusses his concerns for the loosely defined DSM-5 category, Somatic Symptom Disorder, sets out his suggestions for revising the criteria prior to finalization, as presented to the SSD Work Group chair, in December 2012, and advises clinicians against using the new SSD diagnosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719325
DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder.
Frances A.
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University, Durham, NC.
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Jun;201(6):530-1. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318294827c. No abstract available.
PMID: 23719325
Commentary by Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman in the May 2012 issue of Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. The paper discusses the over-inclusive DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder criteria and the potential implications for diverse patient groups. The paper concludes by advising clinicians not to use the new SSD diagnosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653063
DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder mislabels medical illness as mental disorder.
Allen Frances¹, Suzy Chapman²
1 Department of Psychiatry, Duke University 2 DxRevisionWatch.com
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 May;47(5):483-4. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484525. No abstract available.
PMID: 23653063
The April 22, 2013 edition of Current Biology published a feature article on DSM-5 by science writer, Michael Gross, Ph.D. The article includes quotes from Allen Frances, MD, and Suzy Chapman on potential implications for patients for the application of the new DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder. The article includes concerns for the influence of Somatic Symptom Disorder on proposals for a new ICD category – Bodily Distress Disorder – being field tested for ICD-11.
Current Biology 22 April, 2013 Volume 23, Issue 8
Copyright
2013 All rights reserved. Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 8, R295-R298, 22 April 2013
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.009
Feature
Has the manual gone mental?
Michael Gross
Full text: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00417-X
PDF: http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098221300417X.pdf
In a BMJ opinion piece, published March 2013, Allen Frances, MD, opposes the new Somatic Symptom Disorder, discusses lack of specificity, data from the field trials, and advises clinicians to ignore this new category.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511949
The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill.
Frances A.
Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force
BMJ. 2013 Mar 18;346:f1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580. No abstract available.
PMID: 23511949
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Somatic Symptom Disorder is also included in Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-Of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life (pp. 193-6): Allen Frances, William Morrow & Company (May 2013).
Also Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis: Responding to the Challenge of DSM-5 (Chapter 16): Allen Frances, Guilford Press (June 2013).
Further reading
APA Somatic Symptom Disorder Fact Sheet APA DSM-5 Resources
Somatic Chapter Drops Centrality Of Unexplained Medical Symptoms Psychiatric News, Mark Moran, March 1, 2013
Somatic Symptoms Criteria in DSM-5 Improve Diagnosis, Care David J Kupfer, MD, Chair, DSM-5 Task Force, defends the SSD construct, Huffington Post, February 8, 2013
The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill Allen Frances, MD, BMJ 2013;346:f1580 BMJ Press Release
Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis Suzy Chapman, May 26, 2012
Mislabeling Medical Illness As Mental Disorder Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, DSM 5 in Distress, December 8, 2012
Why Did DSM 5 Botch Somatic Symptom Disorder? Allen Frances, MD, Psychology Today, Saving Normal, February 6, 2013
New Psych Disorder Could Mislabel Sick as Mentally Ill Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, February 27, 2013
Dimsdale JE. Medically unexplained symptoms: a treacherous foundation for somatoform disorders? Psychiatr Clin North Am 2011;34:511-3. [PMID: 21889675]



Keep SSD out of ICD-10-CM – November 15 deadline for objections
November 1, 2013 by admindxrw
Post #278 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3vK
Update: My submission on behalf of Dx Revision Watch can be read here.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has proposed the following DSM-5 disorders for inclusion in the forthcoming ICD-10-CM (Pages 32-44, September 2013 Diagnosis Agenda):
Additionally, APA has petitioned for revisions to the ICD-10-CM listing for gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults, which is not a new disorder.
On Page 45 and 46 of the Agenda, under Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM a number of other additions and changes to specific Chapter 5 F codes are being proposed, including the insertion of Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder.
+++
A final reminder of the deadline for comments and objections in relation to Somatic symptom disorder
Q: When do objections need to be in by and where should they be sent?
A: Submit objections via email by November 15 to Donna Pickett, CDC: nchsicd9CM@cdc.gov
Q: Can anyone submit objections?
A: Yes. And from as many patient, professional and advocacy groups as possible, particularly from the U.S. but also international objections. Although this concerns potential changes to the draft of the U.S. specific ICD-10-CM there may be implications for ICD-11.
Q: What is being proposed?
A: The American Psychiatric Association has requested 6 new DSM-5 disorders for consideration for inclusion in the forthcoming ICD-10-CM via the September 18-19, 2013 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.
APA’s rationales for these requested additions, the coding proposals and timings are set out on Pages 32 thru 44 of the September meeting Diagnosis Agenda.
But on Pages 45-46, under “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms for ICD-10-CM”, a further 17 proposals and changes are listed for consideration for addition to the Mental and behavioral disorders F codes.
These include the addition of the new DSM-5 categories, Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder, as inclusion terms, under the ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders section, thus:
Source: September 2013 Diagnosis Agenda, Page 45
The Diagnosis Agenda can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/icd_topic_packet_sept_181913.pdf
Q: Is “Somatic symptom disorder” being proposed to replace several existing ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders categories and is a unique new code proposed to be assigned to SSD?
A: No, not in the proposal as it stands in the Diagnosis Agenda document.
The proposal is to add SSD as an inclusion term under F45.1 Undifferentiated somatoform disorder. This is the ICD-10-CM code to which SSD is cross-walked in the DSM-5.
Illness anxiety disorder is being proposed as an inclusion term under F45.21 Hypochondriasis. This is the ICD-10-CM code to which Illness anxiety disorder is cross-walked in the DSM-5.
Q: What should I include in my objection?
A: Responders are being asked by NCHS/CMS to consider the following: Whether you agree with a proposal, disagree (and why), or have an alternative proposal to suggest.
Responders are also being asked to comment on the timing of those proposals that are being requested for approval for October 2014: Does a specific proposal for a new or changed Index entry and Tabular List entry meet the criteria for consideration for implementation during a partial code freeze [6] or should consideration for approval be deferred to October 2015?
And separately, and where applicable, comment on the creation of a specific new code for the condition effective from October 1, 2015. (This is not applicable in the case of SSD or Illness anxiety disorder.)
• Since no timing has been specified for the proposed insertion of the requests on Pages 45-46, I suggest stating that as a poorly validated disorder construct, SSD does not meet NCHS/CMS criteria for “new diseases/new technology procedures, and any minor revisions to correct reported errors in these classifications” and should not be considered for approval during a partial code freeze.
+++
On Day Two of the meeting, APA’s Darrel Regier presented 7 proposals for additions or changes, discussed APA’s rationales for each of these requests, in turn, and fielded any resulting questions or comments from the floor or from the meeting chairpersons.
Rationales, references, specific coding proposals for addition as inclusion terms in October 2014 (and subsequent code modifications in those cases where a unique new ICD code is proposed to be created for the term effective from October 2015) are also set out in the Agenda document (from Page 32).
But there was no presentation on behalf of APA, or by representatives of NCHS or CMS, or by anyone else for the specific proposal to add Somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and Illness anxiety disorder as inclusion terms under the ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders.
No rationales for their inclusion or references to scientific evidence to support the validity of these new DSM-5 constructs have been published in the Diagnosis Agenda and there was no discussion of these two proposals during the course of the meeting.
The requesters of the proposals set out on Pages 45-46 are not identified, so it is unclear whether these “Additional Tabular List Inclusion Terms” are being proposed by APA or by NCHS/CMS.
• I suggest you comment in submissions on the absence from both the Agenda document and the meeting presentations of rationales and references to enable proper public scrutiny, consideration and informed responses to the proposed inclusion of these two terms.
All that was said about the list of proposals on Pages 45-46 was the following, after Dr Regier had wrapped up his own presentation and handed the podium back to the Co-Chair:
[Unofficial transcription from videocast] Donna Pickett (CDC):
• You might also consider quoting the APA’s disturbing DSM-5 field trial data (see March 2013 BMJ commentary by Prof Allen Frances for data).
• Or quote the SSD work group’s recognition of the shaky foundations and lack of scientific robustness for its new DSM-5 construct:
In its recent paper: Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM, the SSD work group acknowledges the “small amount of validity data concerning SSD” and that much “remains to be determined” about the utility and reliability of the specific SSD criteria and its thresholds when applied in busy, general clinical practice, and there are “vital questions that must be answered.” [7]
• There is no body of published research on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics or treatment of the APA’s Somatic symptom disorder construct.
• There is a paucity of rigorous evidence for the validity, safety, reliability, acceptability and utility of the SSD construct when applied to adults and children in diverse clinical settings and across a spectrum of health and allied professionals.
• NCHS/CMS has insufficient scientific basis for the approval of SSD as a valid new disorder construct for inclusion within ICD; has published no independent field trial data and provided no rationale to inform public responses.
+++
Why is it important to submit objections?
If SSD is inserted as an inclusion term to an existing code in ICD-10-CM this may leverage the future replacement of several existing ICD-10-CM Somatoform disorders categories with the SSD construct, to more closely mirror DSM-5.
Inserting SSD as an inclusion term into ICD-10-CM may make it easier for ICD-11 to justify its proposal for a Bodily distress disorder to replace several existing ICD-10 Somatoform disorders categories. Though BDD may not mirror SSD exactly, it is anticipated to incorporate SSD’s characteristics and thereby facilitate harmonization between ICD-11 and DSM-5 disorder terminology.
As set out many times during the three DSM-5 stakeholder reviews and in several papers published earlier this year with Prof Allen Frances, DSM-5 SSD has highly subjective and loose, easily met criteria.
A mental health diagnosis of SSD can be applied as a “bolt-on” to any chronic medical diagnosis – to patients with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, MS, angina, ME and CFS, IBS, FM, chronic pain conditions. It can be applied to adults and children (or to the caregivers of children with chronic illnesses).
SSD may become the dustbin diagnosis into which those with persistent, “medically unexplained” somatic (bodily) symptoms will be shovelled. Patients with rare or hard to diagnose illnesses may find themselves mislabelled with SSD.
Implications for the potential impact on patients for an additional diagnosis of SSD are set out (about half way down the page) in my report Somatic Symptom Disorder could capture millions more under mental health diagnosis and in copies of submissions to the three DSM-5 stakeholder review periods, collated on this site.
Also in Mary Dimmock’s 2012 SSD Call to Action materials.
There is a now a copy of the 20 March, 2013 BMJ commentary “The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill” by Prof Allen Frances (with Suzy Chapman) on the NAPPS Skills (Northern Association for Persistent Physical Symptoms) site (Vincent Deary’s group) in this PDF.
If you’ve not already done so, please get an objection in before November 15.
And please alert all contacts, advocates, patient groups and professionals to the November 15 deadline and the need for input and objections.
Further information:
1 Crazy Like Us: How the U.S. Exports Its Models of Illness – DSM-5 is Americanizing the world’s understanding of the mind Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects, October 9, 2013
2. Dx Revision Watch: APA petitions CMS for additions to ICD-10-CM: Deadline for public comment and objections November 15: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3tq
3. Dx Revision Watch: Videos and meeting materials: September 18- 19 ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting: http://wp.me/pKrrB-3tV
4. Article: ICD Codes for Some DSM-5 Diagnoses Updated, Mark Moran, Psychiatric News, October 07, 2013:
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleID=1757346
5. ICD-9-CM/PCS Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 18-19, 2013
September C & M meeting Diagnosis Agenda Proposals PDF document [PDF – 342 KB]
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/icd_topic_packet_sept_181913.pdf
6. Partial Freeze of Revisions to ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM/PCS
7. Somatic Symptom Disorder: An important change in DSM. Dimsdale JE, Creed F, Escobar J, Sharpe M, Wulsin L, Barsky A, Lee S, Irwin MR, Levenson J. J Psychosom Res. 2013 Sep;75(3):223-8. Epub 2013 Jul 25.
Share this:
Filed under American Psychiatric Association (APA), Bodily Distress Disorders, CMS, Criticism of DSM-V, DSM-5, Diagnostic classification, DSM-5, ICD-10-CM, ICD-11, Somatic Symptom Disorder, Somatoform Disorders Tagged with american psychiatric association, dsm-5, functional somatic syndrome, icd-10-cm, icd-11, institute of psychiatry, NCHS, public comment, somatic symptom disorder, somatoform disorders