DSM-5 submissions collated on Dx Revision Watch site

DSM-5 submissions collated on Dx Revision Watch site

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2S0

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) public review and comment period on its draft proposals for diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 closed on 20 April.

I have been collating copies of submissions on a dedicated page on my Dx Revision Watch site, here:

http://wp.me/PKrrB-AQ

Patient organisations, professionals and advocates who submitted comments and responses to the draft proposals are invited to provide copies of their submissions for publication.  Forward copies to me.agenda@virgin.net or via the Dx Revision Watch Contact form.

International patient organisations submissions:

Whittemore Peterson Institute, Steungroep CFS Netherlands, CFS Associazione Italiana, ME Association, Action for M.E., Invest in ME, Mass. CFIDS/ME & FM, The CFIDS Association of America, Vermont CFIDS Association, IACFSME, The 25% ME Group

Patient advocate submissions:

Suzy Chapman UK (2), Tammie Page M.A. US, LH Seth US, Patient advocate US, John Mizelle, Therapist US, Peter Kemp UK, Ian McLachlan UK, Andrew US, Mary M. Schweitzer PhD US

On 20 April, the APA issued this News Release:

http://tinyurl.com/DSM5reviewcloses

or open PDF here:  APA Closes Public Comment Period for DSM-5 Release No. 10-31

For Information Contact:

Eve Herold, 703-907-8640

press@psych.org  Release No. 10-31

Jaime Valora, 703-907-8562

jvalora@psych.org

EMBARGOED For Release Until: April 20, 2010, 12:01 AM EDT

APA Closes Public Comment Period for Draft Diagnostic Criteria for DSM-5

DSM-5 Work Groups to Review Comments

ARLINGTON, Va. (April 20, 2010) -The American Psychiatric Association received 6,400 comments on a draft of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders during a 2½ month public comment period, which ends today.

“This period of public review and comment of diagnostic criteria is unprecedented in both the field of psychiatry and in medicine,” said Alan F. Schatzberg, M.D., president of the American Psychiatric Association. “It demonstrates the APA’s commitment to an inclusive and transparent process of development for DSM-5.”

The criteria have been available for comment since they were published online on Feb. 10. The draft criteria will continue to be available for review on the DSM-5 Web site, www.dsm5.org , and updates to the draft will be posted on an ongoing basis. The public will have another opportunity to comment on the criteria and any changes after the first round of field trials.

A number of clinicians, researchers and family and patient advocates participated in the public comment period, contributing more than 6,400 comments on various aspects of DSM-5.

All comments submitted via the Web site were assigned to a topic-specific expert from one of the thirteen DSM-5 work groups for review. In their review, work group members will note submissions that need additional consideration from the work group as a whole. Upon evaluation from the entire work group, draft criteria may be revised.

For example, the Eating Disorders Work Group has proposed additional revisions to criteria for Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa based on comments received.

“The goal of DSM-5 is to create an evidence-based manual that is useful to clinicians and represents the best science available,” said David J. Kupfer, M.D., DSM-5 Task Force chair.

“The comments we received provide the task force and work groups with additional information and perspectives, ensuring that we have fully considered the impact any changes would have on clinical practice and disorder prevalence, as well as other real-world implications of revised criteria.”

Most of the comments that were submitted were diagnosis-specific, while nearly one-fourth were general. Distribution of the comments varied across the 13 work groups.

The work groups with the largest number of submitted comments include:

. Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group (23% of comments)

. Anxiety Disorders Work Group (15% of comments)

. Psychosis Disorder Work Group (11% of comments)

. Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders (10% of comments)

Following a review of all submitted comments and possible revisions to the draft criteria, the APA will begin a series of field trials to test some of the proposed diagnostic criteria in clinical settings. The proposed criteria will continue to be reviewed and refined over the next two years.

Final publication of DSM-5 is planned for May 2013

[Ends]

Advertisements

Invest in ME submission to DSM-5 draft proposals

Invest in ME submission to DSM-5 draft proposals

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2RJ

Invest in ME submission

The American Psychiatric Association has recently called for comments to be forwarded regarding their draft proposal for DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States and contains a listing of diagnostic criteria for every psychiatric disorder recognized by the U.S. healthcare system).

Included in DSM-V is a section entitled Complex Somatic Symptom Disorders.

Considering that psychiatrists in the UK have caused such harm to people with ME and their families over the past generation Invest in ME decided that input needed to be made to the APA regarding this section.

Below is Invest in ME’s response – submitted on 19th April 2010.

The CSSD criteria are described here –

[Content superceded by third DSM-5 draft criteria.]

The link to the APA web page – entitled DSM-5: The Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis is at –

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368  

Submission – to the American Psychiatric Association on DSM-V

Invest in ME is an independent UK charity campaigning for bio-medical research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME or ME/CFS), as defined by WHO-ICD-10-G93.3 – (also referred to as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) – although in this letter we shall use the term ME/CFS).

Even though we are not mental health professionals or represent people with mental health disorders we feel it important to comment on the draft proposal of DSM-V.

This response should be seen against the backdrop of the devastation caused by some psychiatrists in the UK regarding their treatment of people with ME/CFS and their promotion of false perceptions about the disease to the public, healthcare authorities and government.

When a generation of patients have been adversely affected by misinformation promoted by a section of psychiatrists in the UK and when the field of psychiatry has been brought into disrepute by these same psychiatrists then it is of paramount importance that the American Psychiatric Association are aware of the dangers inherent in establishing incorrect categories of disorders which are based on poor science, vested interests or which do not serve the patients for whom they must surely be priority in all healthcare provision.

We are especially concerned about the criteria described in the new category of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder which seems to lump together many illnesses. It cannot be helpful for clinicians or researchers to have such a variety of patients under one category especially when very little is known of the pathophysiology of these conditions placed in this category.

In the CSSD Criteria B there are terms used which are subjective and not measurable – such as “health concerns” and “catastrophising”.

Based on our experience with the treatment of an organic illness such as ME/CFS our concern is that there is a great danger of mis- or missed diagnoses when looking at this category and its diagnostic criteria.

Not all physical illnesses can be easily determined without extensive investigations and this category may allow clinicians to miss brain tumours, rare cancers and other illnesses which are difficult to diagnose.

The criteria are very vague and allow too much subjectivity.

In fact, ME/CFS could mistakenly be placed in this category if one were to ignore the huge volume of biomedical research and evidence which shows it to be an organic illness and if one were to use only the broad CSSD criteria to diagnose.

Such an action would be a major and costly mistake.

The patients we are concerned with suffer from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis which is a neurological disease but all too often these patients are being treated as if they had a somatoform illness.

Parents of children with ME are restricted in visiting their severely ill children in hospital or worse still the children are taken away from their families as the healthcare professional believes it is the family that is keeping the child ill.

Severely ill grown ups with this disease are denied usual medical care and threatened with sectioning if they are too ill to care for themselves and ask for help.

This not only sets patient against healthcare professional but also is a waste of resources and of lives. In the UK the profession of psychiatry also suffers as psychiatrists are often derided as uncaring, unscientific and unprofessional. The possibility of litigation ensuing against psychiatrists who cause such damage should also not be forgotten.

A broad unspecific category such as the proposed Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder does not help patients who need an honest and clear diagnosis. Any illness lacking a diagnostic test is in danger of being put into this non specific category which helps no one.

We are at least thankful that the APA has not attempted to repeat the major mistake being made by prominent UK psychiatrists in attempting to classify Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in amongst Complex Somatic Symptom Disorders.

Such a course of action would create another source of conflict between patients and the field of psychiatry and lead to unnecessary loss of health, potential loss of life and possible legal actions being taken against those professional organizations and/or individuals who use incorrect guidance for their diagnoses,

Yours Sincerely,

Kathleen McCall

Chairman Invest in ME
Charity Nr 1114035

Invest in ME
PO Box 561
Eastleigh SO50 0GQ
Hampshire
England

Mary Schweitzer letter to the APA on Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)

Mary Schweitzer letter to the APA on Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD)

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2RD

Mary Schweitzer

13 April 2010

There are only a few days left to comment on the proposed new category of Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder (CSSD) for the APA’s new DSM-5. To read about the proposed new classification, go to the following website:

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=368

Instructions for comments are on the bottom of the page. You have to register, but that’s not difficult.

We have only until April 20 to leave a comment.

Many organizations connected to ME and CFS advocacy have sent testimony – all should. This could be very dangerous. To begin with, psychiatric treatment is not going to help the biomedical foundation of the disease, so the misdiagnosis would lead to maltreatment. But there are other concerns as well. If “CFS” was promoted as the psychological illness CSSD, patients would be subject to the restrictions insurance companies place on mental disorders. Most health insurance plans do not cover more than a few doctor’s visits per year for a mental illness, if they cover any at all; most disability insurance plans only cover mental illnesses for 3-5 years, if they cover them at all. This is, of course, a great injustice to those with mental illnesses. But that injustice would not be improved by adding patients with “CSSD” to the mix.

My own comments can be found here:

http://slightlyalive.blogspot.com/2010/04/my-letter-to-apa-on-cssd.html

Mary Schweitzer

Allen Frances MD on DSM-5 draft proposals and comment: Psychology Today

Allen Frances MD on DSM-5 draft proposals and comment: Psychology Today

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Ry

Over the past 12 months, Allen Francis MD has published a series of often controversial commentaries on the DSM revision process in the media, via Psychiatric Times website and yesterday, on the site of Psychology Today.

Dr Frances had been chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. He is currently professor emeritus at Duke.

I have had a comment published, this morning, in response to his latest piece on Psychology Today.

Blogs
DSM5 in Distress

The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.
by Allen Frances, MD

DSM5: An Open Process Or Bust
The next steps need help from the field and public.
Published on April 12, 2010

“The first drafts of DSM5 were posted two months ago, allowing the field and the public a first glimpse into what had previously been an inexplicably secretive process. Today is the last day for public comment on these drafts…”

Read full text here

Comments

Public review process

Submitted by Suzy Chapman on April 13, 2010 – 3:24am.

I would like to thank Dr Frances for his commentaries around the DSM revision process. I hope he won’t mind my highlighting that draft proposals are out for review until Tuesday, 20 April – so there is another week during which health professionals, researchers, patient organisations and the lay public can input into the review process.

For some time now, professionals in the field, interest groups and the media have voiced concerns that the broadening of criteria for some DSM-5 categories would bring many more patients under a mental health diagnosis.

But if the draft proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group were to be approved there will be medical, social and economic implications to the detriment of all patient populations and especially those bundled by many within the field of liaison psychiatry and psychosomatics under the so-called “Functional Somatic Syndromes” (FSS) and “Medically Unexplained Syndromes” (MUS) umbrellas, under which they include Chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, Fibromyalgia, IBS, chemical injury, chemical sensitivity, chronic Lyme disease, GWS and others [1].

There is considerable concern amongst international patient organisations for the implications of the “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group proposal for combining Somatoform Disorders, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition (PFAMC), and Factitious Disorders under a common rubric called “Somatic Symptom Disorders” and for the creation of a new classification, “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder” (CSSD).

They are particularly concerned for patients living with conditions characterised by so-called “medically unexplained symptoms” or with medical conditions for which diagnostic tests are currently lacking that provide evidence substantiating the medical seriousness of their symptoms and the need for provision of appropriate medical investigations, treatments, financial and social support, and in the case of children and young people, the putting in place of arrangements for the education of children too sick to attend mainstream school.

According to “Somatic Symptom Disorders” Work Group proposals:

[Criteria superceded by third draft criteria.]

The CFIDS Association of America has submitted: “As drafted, the criteria for CSSD establish a “Catch 22” paradox in which six months or more of a single or multiple somatic symptoms – surely a distressing situation for a previously active individual – is classified as a mental disorder if the individual becomes “excessively” concerned about his or her health. Without establishing what “normal” behavior in response to the sustained loss of physical health and function would be and in the absence of an objective measure of what would constitute excessiveness, the creation of this category poses almost certain risk to patients without providing any offsetting improvement in diagnostic clarity or targeted treatment.” [2]

To date, there has been little public discussion by professionals or the media of the medical, social and economic implications for patients of the application of an additional diagnosis of “Complex Somatic Symptom Disorder”.

With a week to go before this initial public review period closes there is still time and I urge professionals and stakeholders to scrutinise the proposals of the “Somatic Symptom Disorder” Work Group and to submit their concerns to the Task Force.

Suzy Chapman, UK patient advocate

[1] Marin H, Escobar JI: Unexplained Physical Symptoms What’s a Psychiatrist to Do? Psychiatric Times. Aug 2008, Vol. 25 No. 9 http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1171223

[2] CFIDS Association of America submission to DSM-5 public review:
http://www.cfids.org/advocacy/2010/dsm5-statement.pdf

—————————

Related material:

PULSE Today

Managing medically unexplained symptoms, 07 Apr 10

—————————

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

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

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

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

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

Two Key PDF documents are associated with proposals:

 PDF Somatic Symptom Disorders Introduction DRAFT 1/29/10

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

The Alpha Draft for ICD-11 is scheduled for May 2010. I shall be posting again shortly around the ICD-11 revision process.

DSM-5 submissions by US, UK and international patient organisations

DSM-5 submissions by US, UK and international patient organisations

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Rk

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

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

 

US patient organisation submissions:

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

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

International patient organisation submissions:

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

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

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

 

UK patient organisation submissions:

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

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

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

The Young ME Sufferers Trust: No reply received.

AYME: No reply received.

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

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

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

Later in the day, Action for M.E. posted on its Facebook Wall ( http://www.facebook.com/actionforme ) that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Riley added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The project’s UK chair was Professor Michael Sharpe.

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

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

 

Related material:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Key PDF documents are associated with proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compiled by Suzy Chapman

New posts on Dx Revision Watch site

New posts on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch site

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2Ou

DSM-5 Development Timeline

15 February | Shortlink Post #18: http://wp.me/pKrrB-zf

DSM-5 Psychiatric/General Medical Interface Study Group

15 February | Shortlink Post #19: http://wp.me/pKrrB-zC

Two key DSM-5 draft proposal documents (Somatic Symptom Disorders)

16 February | Shortlink Post #20: http://wp.me/pKrrB-zN

Submitting comments in the DSM-5 Draft Proposal review process

17 February | Shortlink Post #21: http://wp.me/pKrrB-AB

Submissions in response to proposals by the DSM-5 Work Group for Somatic Symptom Disorders

23 February | Shortlink Post #22: http://wp.me/pKrrB-BX

DSM-5 (DSM-V) proposed revisions and draft criteria published today

DSM-5 (DSM-V) proposed revisions and draft criteria published today

Shortlink to this Post:  http://wp.me/p5foE-2LO

Today, 10 February, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released draft proposals for revisions to DSM-IV and draft criteria for DSM-5.

American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 Development

Proposed Draft Revisions to DSM Disorders and Criteria are published here on the APA’s relaunched DSM-5 website

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Selected material for revision of “Somatoform Disorders” on this ME agenda posting and this Dx Revision Watch site DSM-5 Draft proposals page.

The comment period runs from 10 February to 20 April.

Open APA News Release here in PDF format or text below

http://www.dsm5.org/Newsroom/Documents/Diag%20%20Criteria%20General%20FINAL%202.05.pdf

APA News Release:

Public release date: 10-Feb-2010

Contact: Jaime Valora
jvalora@psych.org
703-907-8562
American Psychiatric Association

APA announces draft diagnostic criteria for DSM-5

New proposed changes posted for leading manual of mental disorders

ARLINGTON, Va. (Feb. 10, 2010) – The American Psychiatric Association today released the proposed draft diagnostic criteria for the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The draft criteria represent content changes under consideration for DSM, which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health and other health professionals, and is used for diagnostic and research purposes.

“These draft criteria represent a decade of work by the APA in reviewing and revising DSM,” said APA President Alan Schatzberg, M.D. “But it is important to note that DSM-5 is still very much a work in progress – and these proposed revisions are by no means final.” The proposed diagnostic criteria will be available for public comment until April 20, and will be reviewed and refined over the next two years. During this time, the APA will conduct three phases of field trials to test some of the proposed diagnostic criteria in real-world clinical settings.

Proposed revisions

Members of 13 work groups, representing different categories of psychiatric diagnoses, have reviewed a wide body of scientific research in the field and consulted with a number of expert advisors to arrive at their proposed revisions to DSM. Among the draft revisions are the following:

• The recommendation of new categories for learning disorders and a single diagnostic category, “autism spectrum disorders” that will incorporate the current diagnoses of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder (not otherwise specified). Work group members have also recommended that the diagnostic term “mental retardation” be changed to “intellectual disability,” bringing the DSM criteria into alignment with terminology used by other disciplines.

• Eliminating the current categories substance abuse and dependence, replacing them with the new category “addiction and related disorders.” This will include substance use disorders, with each drug identified in its own category.

• Eliminating the category of dependence will better differentiate between the compulsive drug-seeking behavior of addiction and normal responses of tolerance and withdrawal that some patients experience when using prescribed medications that affect the central nervous system.

• Creating a new category of “behavioral addictions,” in which gambling will be the sole disorder. Internet addiction was considered for this category, but work group members decided there was insufficient research data to do so, so they recommended it be included in the manual’s appendix instead, with a goal of encouraging additional study.

• New suicide scales for adults and adolescents to help clinicians identify those individuals most at risk, with a goal of enhancing interventions across a broad range of mental disorders; the scales include research-based criteria such as impulsive behavior and heavy drinking in teens.

• Consideration of a new “risk syndromes” category, with information to help clinicians identify earlier stages of some serious mental disorders, such as neurocognitive disorder (dementia) and psychosis.

• A proposed new diagnostic category, temper dysregulation with dysphoria (TDD), within the Mood Disorders section of the manual. The new criteria are based on a decade of research on severe mood dysregulation, and may help clinicians better differentiate children with these symptoms from those with bipolar disorder or oppositional defiant disorder.

• New recognition of binge eating disorder and improved criteria for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, as well as recommended changes in the definitions of some eating disorders now described as beginning in infancy and childhood to emphasize that they may also develop in older individuals.

The APA has prepared detailed press releases on each of these topics, which are available on the DSM-5 Web site.

Dimensional Assessments

In addition to proposed changes to specific diagnostic criteria, the APA is proposing that “dimensional assessments” be added to diagnostic evaluations of mental disorders. These would permit clinicians to evaluate the severity of symptoms, as well as take into account “cross-cutting” symptoms that exist across a number of different diagnoses (such as insomnia or anxiety).

“We know that anxiety is often associated with depression, for example, but the current DSM doesn’t have a good system for capturing symptoms that don’t fit neatly into a single diagnosis, said David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force. “Dimensional assessments represent an important benefit for clinicians evaluating and treating patients with mental illness. It may help them better evaluate how a patient is improving with treatment, help them address symptoms that affect a patient’s quality of life and better assess patients whose symptoms may not yet be severe – leading to earlier effective treatment.”

Careful Consideration of Gender, Race and Ethnicity

The process for developing the proposed diagnostic criteria for DSM-5 has included careful consideration of how gender, race and ethnicity may affect the diagnosis of mental illness. The team has sought significant involvement of women, members of diverse racial and ethnic groups, and international researchers and clinicians. The APA also designated a specific study group to review and research these issues, and ensure they were taken into account in the development of diagnostic criteria.

The Gender and Cross-Cultural Study Group reviewed epidemiological data sets from the United States and other countries to determine if there were significant differences in incidence of mental illness among different subgroups (e.g., gender, race and ethnicity) that might indicate a bias in currently-used diagnostic criteria, including conducting meta-analyses (additional analyses combining data from different studies). Group members reviewed the literature from a broad range of international researchers who have explored issues of gender, ethnic and racial differences for specific diagnostic categories of mental illness. The study group also considered whether there was widespread cultural bias in criteria for specific diagnoses.

As a result of this process, the study group has tried to determine whether the diagnostic categories of mental illness in DSM need changes in order to be sensitive to the various ways in which gender, race and culture affect the expression of symptoms.

Public Review of Proposed Revisions

The resulting recommendations for revisions to the current DSM are being posted on the APA’s Web site for the manual, www.DSM5.org, for public review and written comment. These comments will be reviewed and considered by the relevant DSM-5 Work Groups.

“The process for developing DSM-5 continues to be deliberative, thoughtful and inclusive,” explained Dr. Kupfer. “It is our job to review and consider the significant advances that have been made in neuroscience and behavioral science over the past two decades. The APA is committed to developing a manual that is both based on the best science available and useful to clinicians and researchers.”

Overview of DSM-5 Development Process

The last edition of DSM was published in 1994. Beginning in 2000, during the initial phase of revising DSM, the APA engaged almost 400 international research investigators in 13 NIH supported conferences. In order to invite comments from the wider research, clinical and consumer communities, the APA launched a DSM-5 Prelude Web site in 2004 to garner questions, comments, and research findings during the revision process.

Starting in 2007, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups, made up of over 160 world-renowned clinicians and researchers, were tasked with building on the previous seven years of scientific reviews, conducting additional focused reviews, and garnering input from a wide range of advisors as the basis for proposing draft criteria. In addition to the work groups in diagnostic categories, there were study groups assigned to review gender, age and cross-cultural issues.

Based on the upcoming comments to the draft criteria and findings of the field trials, the work groups will propose final revisions to the diagnostic criteria in 2012. The final draft of DSM-5 will be submitted to the APA’s Assembly and Board of Trustees for their review and approval. A release of the final, approved DSM-5 is expected in May 2013.

###
The American Psychiatric Association is a national medical specialty society whose physician members specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and research of mental illnesses, including substance use disorders. Visit the APA at www.psych.org and www.healthyminds.org .

DSM-5 Draft Criteria Available for Public Comment 10 February through 20 April

DSM-5 Draft Criteria Available for Public Comment 10 February through 20 April

Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-x2

Source: Student Doctor

The American Psychiatric Association is seeking your comments on proposed criteria for the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health and other health professionals for diagnostic and research purposes.

Proposed DSM-5 draft criteria will be available for review and comment at http://www.DSM5.org from February 10 to April 20, 2010. Health professionals, mental health consumers and family members are invited to visit the site to review and comment on the draft criteria.

DSM-5 remains a work in progress: following the public comment period, the DSM-5 Task Force and Work Groups will spend two years reviewing and refining proposed criteria based on public comments and the results of field trials, which will be conducted in three phases to test some of the proposed diagnostic criteria in real-world clinical settings.

The release of the final DSM-5 is expected in May 2013.

For more information, visit http://www.DSM5.org .

New documents on ICD-11 Revision site

New documents on ICD-11 Revision site: WHO iCAMP ICD-ICF Linkages Meeting, Geneva, 28–29 January 2010:

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2IP

On 28 to 29 January, a two day iCAMP Face-to-Face Meeting was held at WHO HQ, Geneva, Switzerland.

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, also known as ICF, is a classification of the health components of functioning and disability. The ICF classification complements the WHO’s ICD-10, which contains information on diagnosis and health condition, but not on functional status. The ICD and ICF constitute the core classifications in the WHO Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC).

A List of Participants, Meeting Agenda, Background Documentation, PowerPoint presentations and other documents can be found here on the Face-to-Face Meeting page, ICD-11 Revision Site: ICD-ICF Linkages Meeting

Three documents that may be of interest:

Style Guide for the Content Model of the ICD-11 Alpha draft

The “Content Model” identifies the basic properties needed to define any ICD concept (unit, entity or category) through the use of multiple parameters.

Most recent version of Content Model Style Guide (at 27.01.10)

Note: It is not yet known how much textual content might be included in ICD-11: Volume 1, and ICD-11: Volume 3: The Alphabetical Index, for the terms that are the focus for this site. But this is the most recent version of this important document and it needs to be scrutinised.

ICD Revision Project Executive Summary

Project milestones and budget, and organizational overview  Page 5

New document: ICD Revision Project Executive Summary (at 25.01.10)

Note: Project milestones on Page 5 gives a release date for the ICD-11 Alpha draft as February 2010.  Other current ICD Revision resources give a date of May 2010.

Alpha Drafting Workflow

Sets out lines of responsibility between the various contributors for the alpha drafting phase.
TAG = Topic Advisory Group; RSG = Revision Steering Group.

• TAG members and TAG workgroup members
• Classification Experts. (mainly the experts on the classification with respect to the mortality and morbidity use cases)
• TAG managing Editors
• Reviewers who are asked to review portions of the content in a structured fashion
• TAGs
• RSG
• WHO

Alpha Drafting Workflow (at 06.10.09)

Additional resources and documents are being posted by ICD Revision on a dedicated public access site. Some of these documents are works in progress and subject to internal review and revision. Please refer to the site for the most recent versions. The three documents posted here are as they stood at 28 January 2010.

ICD-11 Revision site  |  Revision and iCAMP meeting resources

ICD-11 Revision site Documents Page  |  Key revision documents

Notes:

1] The APA now plans to publish draft proposals for changes to diagnostic criteria on 10 February. The Alpha Draft for ICD-11 is currently timelined for May 2010.

2] DSM-V Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group proposals so far can be found at: DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch at: http://wp.me/PKrrB-hT

3] The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine November ’09 Annual Meeting slide presentations here:

Francis Creed, MD, FRCP: Can We Now Explain Medically Unexplained Symptoms?

PDF Creed Presentation Slides (No transcript)
http://www.apm.org/ann-mtg/2009/presenter-slides/HackettAward-creed.pdf

PDF References
http://www.apm.org/ann-mtg/2009/presenter-slides/HackettAward-creed-refs.pdf




(A lengthy but important slide presentation by DSM-V Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group member, Francis Creed. No transcript available but please view the slides – there are many references to “Chronic fatigue syndrome”, chronic fatigue and IBS and to the so called “Functional Somatic Syndromes”.)

Lawson Wulsin, MD, FAPM, DSM V for Psychosomatic Medicine: Current Progress and Controversies
PDF Wulsin Presentation Slides (No transcript)

http://www.apm.org/ann-mtg/2009/presenter-slides/W15-wulsin.pdf

Joel Dimsdale, MD, FAPM, Update on DSM V Somatic Symptoms Workgroup
Text version (No slides)

http://www.apm.org/ann-mtg/2009/presenter-slides/W15-dimsdale-text.pdf

4] ICD-11 and DSM-V (DSM-5) focussed editorials and articles in January 2010 edition of Advances in Psychiatric Treatment: Shortlink to DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch posting: http://wp.me/pKrrB-up

ICD-11 and DSM-V focussed editorials and articles: Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, Jan 10

ICD-11 and DSM-V (DSM-5) focussed editorials and articles in: Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, Jan 10

Shortlink: http://wp.me/p5foE-2G1

In the January 2010, Volume 16, Issue 1 edition of Advances in Psychiatric Treatment there are two editorials and some articles around ICD-11 and DSM-V revision classificatory issues.

The Bouch editorial commentary, the Sartorius editorial and the Thornicroft et al article all include brief references to “chronic fatigue syndrome”.

Read on at DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch