The ICD‐11 developmental field study of reliability of diagnoses of high‐burden mental disorders: results among adult patients in mental health settings of 13 countries

Reed, Geoffrey M.; Sharan, Pratap; Rebello, Tahilia J.; Keeley, Jared W.; Medina‐Mora, María Elena; Gureje, Oye; Ayuso-Mateos, José Luís; Kanba, Shigenobu; Khoury, Brigitte; Kogan, Cary S.; Krasnov, Valery N.; Maj, Mario; Mari, Jair de Jesus; Stein, Dan J.; Zhao, Min; Akiyama, Tsuyoshi; Andrews, Howard; Asevedo, Elson; Cheour, Majda; Domínguez-Mártínez, Tecelli; El‐Khoury, Joseph; Fiorillo, Andrea; Grenier, Jean; Gupta, Nitin; Kola, Lola; Kulygina, Maya; Leal-Leturia, Itziar; Luciano, Mario; Lusu, Bulumko; Nicolás, Joaquín; Martínez-López, I.; Matsumoto, Chihiro; Onofa, Lucky; Paterniti, Sabrina; Purnima, Shivani; Robles, Rebeca; Sahu, Manoj Kumar; Sibeko, Goodman; Zhong, Na; First, Michael B.; Gäebel, Wolfgang; Lovell, Anne M.; Maruta, Toshimasa; Roberts, Michael C.; Pike, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1002/wps.20524

Cited by 106 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is documented by several lines of evidence, including two recent issues of this journal. Although current diagnostic categories have demonstrated moderate to almost perfect reliability, their usefulness has remained questionable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The usefulness of current psychiatric classification, which is based on ICD/DSM categorical diagnoses, remains questionable. A promising alternative has been put forward as the "transdiagnostic" approach. This is expected to cut across existing categorical diagnoses and go beyond them, to improve the way we classify and treat mental disorders. This systematic review explores whether self-defining transdiagnostic research meets such high expectations. A multi-step Web of Science literature search was performed according to an a priori protocol, to identify all studies that used the word "transdiagnostic" in their title, up to May 5, 2018. Empirical variables which indexed core characteristics were extracted, complemented by a bibliometric and conceptual analysis. A total of 111 studies were included. Most studies were investigating interventions, followed by cognition and psychological processes, and neuroscientific topics. Their samples ranged from 15 to 91,199 (median 148) participants, with a mean age from 10 to more than 60 (median 33) years. There were several methodological inconsistencies relating to the definition of the gold standard (DSM/ICD diagnoses), of the outcome measures and of the transdiagnostic approach. The quality of the studies was generally low and only a few findings were externally replicated. The majority of studies tested transdiagnostic features cutting across different diagnoses, and only a few tested new classification systems beyond the existing diagnoses. About one fifth of the studies were not transdiagnostic at all, because they investigated symptoms and not disorders, a single disorder, or because there was no diagnostic information. The bibliometric analysis revealed that transdiagnostic research largely restricted its focus to anxiety and depressive disorders. The conceptual analysis showed that transdiagnostic research is grounded more on rediscoveries than on true innovations, and that it is affected by some conceptual biases. To date, transdiagnostic approaches have not delivered a credible paradigm shift that can impact classification and clinical care. Practical "TRANSD"iagnostic recommendations are proposed here to guide future research in this field.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The newly released ICD‐11 includes two related diagnoses within the section on Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress: post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

ICD‐11 PTSD and complex PTSD: structural validation using network analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Reliability measures for schizophrenia both in internet-based and clinical-based studies have yielded satisfying results Reed et al, 2018).…”

Section: Development Of the Term And Concept Of Schizophrenia: A Briementioning

confidence: 99%

The debate about renaming schizophrenia: a new name would not resolve the stigma

Gäebel

Kerst

2018

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept and name of schizophrenia have been questioned in the scientific community and among various stakeholders. A name change is seen as a means and an opportunity to reduce stigmatizing beliefs and to improve mental health care. Some Asian countries have already taken the step of a name change. So far, however, the scientific community of western countries has not yet come to an agreement on any alternative name. Meeting relevant criteria for a new name, finding agreement among all involved groups and replacing the established term is a complex process. For now, the concept of schizophrenia has proven its reliability, clinical utility and validity, although schizophrenia is a stigmatised mental disorder like many others. Renaming cannot be the only answer to negative beliefs, prejudice and discrimination.

show abstract

The ICD‐11 developmental field study of reliability of diagnoses of high‐burden mental disorders: results among adult patients in mental health settings of 13 countries

Cited by 106 publications

References 45 publications

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

Transdiagnostic psychiatry: a systematic review

ICD‐11 PTSD and complex PTSD: structural validation using network analysis

The debate about renaming schizophrenia: a new name would not resolve the stigma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About