Invited commentary
Nosology of psychoses in DSM-5: Inches ahead but miles to go

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2013.07.032Get rights and content

Section snippets

Role of funding source

This paper was supported in part by NIMH grant MH 78113.

Contributor

Dr. Matcheri S Keshavan MD is the sole author who wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts relevant to this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

I thank Dr. Rajiv Tandon for his valuable comments.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (10)

  • Aligning physiology with psychology: Translational neuroscience in neuropsychiatric drug discovery

    2017, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
    Citation Excerpt :

    During and since the publication of DSM-5, there have been several issues raised and comments elicited. DSM-5 continues to be basically a categorical system for clinical use (Casey et al., 2013; Heckers et al., 2013; Hyman, 2007; Jablensky, 2013), and criteria are removed, changed or downplayed (Keshavan, 2013; Malaspina et al., 2014; Simpson, 2014; Tandon, 2013; Tandon et al., 2013; Volkow and O'Brien, 2007). In general, DSM caters to many and diverse end-users such as general clinicians, specialists, health service providers, insurance companies as well as researchers (Lecavalier, 2013; Malhi, 2013).

  • Evaluating clinicians’ representations of schizoaffective disorder

    2017, Comprehensive Psychiatry
    Citation Excerpt :

    Although ICD-10's classification of SAD has also exhibited poor diagnostic outcomes, the ICD-11 Working Group on Schizophrenia and Other Primary Psychotic Disorders elected not to require a longitudinal assessment of symptom co-occurrence because they deemed it would be too difficult for many individuals to recall when they experienced psychosis and disturbed mood simultaneously [9]. Some have suggested that the changes in DSM-5 may provide some improvement in diagnostic reliability and utility, but the changes are insufficient to address SAD's diagnostic validity [8] considering there is little empirical evidence to differentiate SAD from SCZ and other constructs [2]. SAD's poor diagnostic outcomes could stem from its conceptual nature of encompassing psychotic and affective symptoms that could manifest in a variety of ways based on previous criteria [6,10,11].

  • From DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5: Analysis of some changes

    2014, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
    Citation Excerpt :

    In schizophrenia, as already claimed, diagnostic subtypes (catatonic, disorganized, paranoid, undifferentiated and residual types) had to be eliminated due to limited diagnostic stability, low reliability, and poor validity (APA, 2013c). The relevance given in diagnostic criteria to Schneiderian first-rank symptoms and the consideration of bizarre delusions, traditionally linked to schizophrenia, has disappeared, thereby gaining in specificity (Keshavan, 2013). There are no changes in the consideration of the minimum of indicators for Criterion A (at least two symptoms), but it is emphasized that at least one has to be a positive symptom: hallucinations, delusions, and/or disorganized speech.

  • Persistent Post-Concussive Psychiatric Problems

    2019, Concussion and Traumatic Encephalopathy: Causes, Diagnosis, and Management
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text