Relative size of the literatures for psychopathological disorders: Number of articles pertaining to DSM-iv diagnostic categories

Abstract

A computerized search of the 1991-1997 PsycLIT database was used to quantify the size of the literature for each of the DSM-IV mental disorders. The search included DSM-IV/IIIR diagnoses and alternative terms for the disorders to provide a complete assessment. Generally it was found that major disorders and those with neurophysiological components were investigated a great deal (there were over 10,000 articles for both major depression and schizophrenia) while there were few articles concerning rare or newly introduced disorders. Within diagnostic groups certain disorders received the preponderance of research attention. Factors related to the degree to which a mental disorder is investigated are discussed. These findings should stimulate consideration of whether clinical research is directing its efforts in a way that best promotes understanding of the nature and treatment of mental disorders.

Schizophrenia in Medline 1950–2006: A bibliometric investigation

“…Many psychiatric fields have been studied with the help of bibliometric methods, e.g. the relative size of the literature for diagnostic categories (Sprock and Herrmann, 2000), bipolar disorder (Clement, Singh and Burns, 2003;Lopez-Munoz, Vieta, Rubio et al, 2006), the use of DSM and ICD for classification (Lopez-Munoz, Garcia-Garcia, Saiz-Ruiz et al, 2008), the use of SSRIs for treatment of depression (Lopez-Munoz, Alamo, Rubio et al, 2003), studies of ADHD (Lopez-Munoz, Alamo, Quintero-Gutiérrez et al, 2008), eating disorders (Theander, 2002;Theander, 2004), and schizophrenia (Morlino, Lisanti, Gogliettino et al, 1997). Bibliometrics uses principally two methods, a) counting numbers of articles as quantitative measure (Price, 1951), or b) use of citation analysis in the search for the value or impact of a paper, a journal, or a research group (Garfield, 1955;Lundberg, 2006;Garfield, 2007;Koskinen, Isohanni, Paajala et al, 2008).…”

Diagnosis of depersonalization disorder

“…It has been proposed that DPD is under-researched (Lambert et al, 2000;Simeon, 2004;Sprock & Herrmann, 2000). In addition, clinicians receive little training on the diagnosis of dissociative disorders (Dorahy et al, 2005), suggesting that many clinicians may not be familiar with DPD.…”

“…One reason is that DPD is underresearched (Simeon, 2004). Considering the fact that the diagnosis has been included in the diagnostic manual for nearly 30 years, there is a dearth of research on DPD, particularly in comparison to the wealth of research on other dissociative disorders, such as Dissociative Identity Disorder (Sprock & Herrmann, 2000). Indeed, a current search of the PsycINFO literature database revealed only 114 articles with DPD as the primary focus.…”

“…The authors concluded that clinicians' lack of training and knowledge of dissociative disorders contributed to their failure to consider DID as a diagnosis. Given the dearth of literature on DPD relative to DID (i.e., Sprock & Herrmann, 2000) it seems likely that clinicians may fail to diagnose DPD because the disorder and its diagnostic criteria are not well known and may be difficult to recall, whereas other disorders, such as psychotic and mood disorders, may come to mind with more ease.…”

“…Future research may be directed towards examining differential diagnosis of DPD in clinical samples, as the literature indicates that DPD is under-researched (Lambert et al, 2000;Simeon, 2004;Sprock & Herrmann, 2000). Further research studying the more comprehensive descriptions of DPD in the literature can be conducted in clinical and community samples.…”