Diagnostic criteria for postconcussional syndrome after mild to moderate traumatic brain injury

This study evaluated the prevalence and specificity of diagnostic criteria for postconcussional syndrome (PCS) in 178 adults with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 104 with extracranial trauma. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for PCS were evaluated 3 months after injury. The results showed that prevalence of PCS was higher using ICD-10 (64%) than DSM-IV criteria (11%). Specificity to TBI was limited because PCS criteria were often fulfilled by patients with extracranial trauma. The authors conclude that further refinement of the DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for PCS is needed before these criteria are routinely employed.     

Postconcussional disorder: Are the DSM-IV criteria an improvement over the ICD-10?

Little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of patients diagnosed with postconcussional disorder (PCD) under the provisionally proposed criteria in the DSM-IV and how they differ from patients diagnosed with postconcussional syndrome (PCS) under the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition clinical (ICD-10) criteria. This study investigated differences in outcome based on a diagnosis of PCD (DSM-IV) versus PCS (ICD-10 clinical criteria) as to which criteria set might be preferred for clinical practice. A consecutive series of adult patients with mild (N = 319) to moderate (N = 21) traumatic brain injury was assessed at 3 months postinjury with a brief neuropsychological battery and measures of specific outcome domains. In two separate series of analyses, patients with PCD were compared with those without PCD, and those with PCS were compared with those without PCS. Although the two criteria sets resulted in markedly different incidence rates, there was no substantial pattern of differences between the DSM-IV and ICD-10 in the outcome domains of psychiatric symptoms and disorders, social and community integration, health-related quality of life, or global outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended. In spite of significant differences between the two diagnostic criteria sets and different incidence rates for PCD/PCS, outcome in all measured domains was very similar at 3 months postinjury. There is no compelling evidence, based on these outcome domains, to suggest which of the two diagnostic criteria sets should be clinically preferred.     

Reliability of clinical ICD-10 schizophrenia diagnoses

Concern has been expressed as to the reliability of clinical ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia. This study was designed to assess the diagnostic reliability of the clinical ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia in a random sample of Danish in- and outpatients with a history of psychosis. A sample of 100 subjects was assessed using the operational criteria OPCRIT checklist for psychotic and affective illness. The most recent principal and clinical ICD-10 diagnosis was compared with diagnoses generated by the OPCRIT instrument. Data documented very high sensitivity (93%) and positive predictive value (87%) of ICD-10 schizophrenia and an overall good agreement between clinical and OPCRIT-derived diagnoses (kappa=0.60). An even higher positive predictive value was obtained when diagnoses were amalgamated into a diagnostic entity of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (98%). Near perfect agreement was seen between OPCRIT-derived ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses (kappa=0.87). Thus, this study demonstrates high reliability of the clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia and even more so of the diagnosis of schizophrenia-spectrum disorder.     

DSM-IV and ICD-10 generalized anxiety disorder: discrepant diagnoses and associated disability

  Background: It is commonly assumed that diagnoses according to DSM-IV and ICD-10 are equivalent. Recent discussions on generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) have suggested that ICD-10 criteria may be identifying a milder form of the disorder than DSM-IV. This report examines prevalence and associated disability of DSM-IV and ICD-10 GAD. Methods: The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to a community sample of 10,641 people, and the diagnostic criteria that contributed to discrepancies between DSM-IV and ICD-10 GAD were identified. A multiple linear regression analysis was carried out to determine the strength of the relationship between disability, as measured by the SF-12, and discrepant diagnoses of GAD. Results: The concordance between DSM-IV and ICD-10 GAD was fair (kappa=0.39). The two sources of discrepancy when DSM-IV was positive and ICD-10 was negative resulted from the requirement in ICD-10 that the respondent endorse symptoms of autonomic arousal (ICD-10 criterion B) and the requirement that ICD-10 GAD does not co-occur with panic/agoraphobia, social phobia or obsessive-compulsive disorder (ICD-10 criterion C). The two major sources of discrepancy when ICD-10 was positive and DSM-IV was negative resulted from the requirement in DSM-IV that the worry be excessive (DSM-IV criterion A) and that it causes clinically significant distress or impairment (DSM-IV criterion E). DSM-only GAD cases had significantly higher levels of disability than ICD-only cases of GAD after controlling for demographic variables and the presence of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Conclusions: While the prevalence rates for DSM-IV and ICD-10 GAD are almost identical, these classification systems are diagnosing different groups of people. Accepted: 18 September 2000     

Depression,dysthymia and substance use disorders: sources of dissonance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV

The present study examined the diagnostic concordance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV in the depressive disorders, dysthymic disorder and substance dependence and substance harmful use/abuse disorder. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) was administered to 1504 people, in a sample derived from community and clinic cases, and discrepant diagnoses were identified for ICD-10 and DSM-IV. The diagnostic concordance for the depressive disorders, dysthymic disorder and substance dependence disorder was excellent (kappa = 0.89, 0.93, and 0.86, respectively). Diagnostic agreement in the substance harmful use/abuse disorder category was considerably lower (Kappa = 0.44). The small number of discrepancies in diagnoses of the depressive disorders, dysthymic disorder and substance dependence disorder are a reflection of minor but real differences in the diagnostic criteria. Discrepancies in the diagnosis of substance harmful use/abuse disorder are explained by different concepts proposed to define each disorder. Copyright © 1998 Whurr Publishers Ltd.     

Diagnostic criteria influence dementia prevalence.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of dementia using different diagnostic systems, and to investigate the influence of the different diagnostic components (memory impairment, personality changes, definition of other intellectual functions) on the prevalence. METHODS: A general population sample of 1,019 elderly living in Gothenburg, Sweden was investigated by using the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale as well as specific assessments relevant for dementia diagnoses. Diagnoses were given according to the 9th and 10th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9, ICD-10) as well as the 3rd revised and 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R, DSM-IV). Further, "historical" criteria for dementia were applied as had been used in older studies. RESULTS: DSM-IV dementia occurred most frequently (9.6%), followed by dementia according to "historical" criteria (7.4%), DSM-III-R (6.3%), ICD-10 (3.1%), and ICD-9 (1.2%). The kappa values for the agreement between the diagnostic systems were between 0.166 and 0.810. The requirement of both long-term and short-term memory impairment in DSM-III-R and personality changes in ICD-10 explained most of the differences. When these requirements were held constant, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, ICD-10 and "historical" criteria identified predominantly the same persons as demented (kappa: 0.810-1.000). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of dementia varied widely depending on diagnostic classification system used. For DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, ICD-10, and "historical" criteria, the definitions of personality changes and combinations of memory impairment lead to differing prevalence rates, whereas the definitions of other intellectual functions have little impact.     

Correlates of persistent postconcussional disorder: DSM-IV criteria versus ICD-10

Controversy surrounding the causation of symptom complaints after mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) is reflected by the existence of alternative diagnostic criteria for postconcussional syndrome (PCS) in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and postconcussional disorder (PCD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th edition (DSM-IV). Previous studies of persisting symptoms have employed various symptom checklists rather than uniform criteria-based diagnoses. This is the first prospective study of persisting symptom complaints using the formal diagnostic criteria for PCD and PCS and comparing these criteria sets in terms of prevalence, relationship to potential compensation, and emotional/functional status. In this prospective study, an unselected series of adults with uncomplicated MTBI (N = 139) was assessed at 6 months postinjury with a brief neuropsychological battery and measures of psychiatric symptoms/disorders, social support/community integration, health-related quality of life, and global outcome. In parallel analyses, participants with PCD/PCS were compared to those without the disorder. Potential compensation was an equally significant factor in both criteria sets. Persistent PCS criteria were met 3.1 times more frequently than persistent PCD criteria. Significant racial differences in fulfilling PCD/PCS criteria were found. No differences in emotional/functional status patterns or global outcome were found between the criteria sets except for minor dissimilarities in the social/community integration domain. The results demonstrate that despite large differences in the frequency of patients meeting the two diagnostic criteria sets, a clear basis for preferring either the PCD or PCS criteria remains to be determined.     

A comparison of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) with clinical assessment in diagnosing mood and anxiety disorders

OBJECTIVE: Increasingly, epidemiological studies are employing computerized and highly standardized interviews, such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto), to assess the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Recent studies conducted in specialist units have reported poor agreement between experienced clinicians' and CIDI-Auto diagnoses. In this study we investigated the concordance rate between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto for the diagnosis of six anxiety disorders and two mood disorders, whereby the CIDI-Auto was treated as the 'gold standard'. METHOD: Subjects were 262 patients who were assessed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist and completed the CIDI-Auto at a tertiary referral unit for anxiety and mood disorders. Agreement between the clinicians' diagnoses and the diagnoses generated by the CIDI-Auto according to both DSM-IV and ICD-10 codes, were examined by kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity values were also calculated. RESULTS: Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (DSM-IV) ranged from poor for social phobia and posttraumatic stress disorder (kappa < 0.30) to moderate for obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD; kappa = 0.52). Agreement between clinicians and the CIDI-Auto (ICD-10) ranged from poor for major depressive episode (kappa = 0.25) to moderate for OCD (kappa = 0.57). With the CIDI diagnosis treated as the gold standard, clinicians' diagnoses showed low sensitivity (kappa < 0.70) for all the disorders except for OCD (for ICD-10), but high specificity (kappa > 0.70) for all the disorders. Conclusion: Poor agreements between experienced clinicians and the CIDI-Auto were reported for anxiety and mood disorders in the current study. A major implication is that if diagnosis alone directed treatment, then patients could receive different treatments, depending on whether the computer, or a clinician, made the diagnosis.     

Diagnosing dementia -- ICD-10 not so bad after all: a comparison between dementia criteria according to DSM-IV and ICD-10

BACKGROUND: The discrepancy between results of diagnosing dementia with ICD-10 and DSM-IV has been shown by several studies. Our aim was to show that the two diagnostic systems are more or less alike if ICD-10 is interpreted in the way we believe is in the intention of the ICD-10 authors. METHODS: Two hundred and seven patients consecutively referred patients and their caregivers were interviewed and the patients were clinically examined. Algorithms using criteria for the World health Organization's International classification of Diseases, 10(th) revision (ICD-10) and the American Psychiatric Association's, the fourth edition (DSM-IV) were followed to diagnose dementia. RESULTS: A diagnosis of dementia was made for 198 patients and there was 100% agreement (kappa = 1,0) between ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In the ICD-10 criteria 'decline in other cognitive abilities such as abstraction, judgement, problem solving' has been interpreted in a way that all the above executive functions must be impaired for diagnosing dementia. According to our interpretation these are meant to be examples of functions which may be compromised in demented patients.The results of our study demonstrate that this interpretation of ICD-10 has shown that the authors of ICD-10 and DSM-IV have succeeded in harmonising the two systems. However, the ICD-10 criteria are phrased in a way that leaves much to individual interpretation. WHO has to define the ICD criteria in such a way that there is uniformity in its interpretation.     

ADHS-Diagnose bei Erwachsenen

We report on a study comparing different systems for the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adulthood. Recruited for evaluation were 168 patients referred to our ADHD outpatient unit. We used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edn. (DSM-IV), International Classification of Diseases 10th edn. (ICD-10), and Utah criteria for diagnostic assessment and the Wender Utah rating scale, ADHD Self Report (ADHD-SR), and Wender Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Rating Scale as psychopathological assessment tools. We present basic psychometric data of the Wender-Reimherr Interview (WRI). Internal consistency was determined as 0.82 (alpha). The inter-rater reliability was 1.0 (kappa coefficient) regarding ADHD diagnoses, and the ICC was 0.98 referring to the WRI total scores. The convergent validity with the ADHD-SR was 0.65 (Spearman coefficient). In 126 of 168 patients an ADHD diagnosis was made according to at least one of the three systems. The DSM-IV diagnostic set led to 119 ADHD diagnoses. As compared with the two other systems, this is about the minimum level for an ADHD diagnosis. All of the 87 ADHD diagnoses according to ICD-10 were covered by DSM-IV. The ICD-10 had no independent psychopathological items and therefore offered no additional points for the diagnostic procedure than the DSM-IV. The situation regarding Utah criteria is different. These criteria contain seven psychopathological domains: inattention, hyperactivity, disorganisation, impulsivity, affective lability, overreactivity, and hot temper. They can be assessed by use of the WRI. Ninety-three of 168 patients were diagnosed as having ADHD according to the Utah concept, which is much lower than with the DSM-IV. The particular definition of the disorder by the Utah criteria resulted in seven patients having only a Utah diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis. Thus we are in a position to say that the Utah criteria have a relatively high level for making an ADHD diagnosis but in certain cases move beyond the DSM-IV. Of the patients 56% had ADHD diagnoses according to all three classification instruments. Examining the factor structure of the ADHD psychopathology represented by seven WRI and three ADHD-SR subscales, we found a two-factor solution explaining for 63% of the variance. Factor 1 was designated by impulsivity, affective lability, hyperactivity, and hot temper; factor 2 consisted of inattention, disorganisation, and overreactivity.     

Psychogenic (reactive) and hysterical psychoses: a cross-system reliability study

The aim of this study was to investigate the concepts of reactive and hysterical psychoses and how they are classified in standardized diagnostic Systems. To this end we identified all of the patients who had been admitted to a psychiatric in-patient unit and diagnosed as suffering from psychogenic psychosis, reactive psychosis, hysterical psychosis or hysteria, using ICD-9 criteria. The case notes of these patients were then re-examined and diagnoses reached using DSM-III-R, DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria and the Present State Examination (PSE)/catego computer program. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the diagnoses of reactive and hysterical psychosis obtained using ICD-9 criteria with those obtained using the DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, ICD-10 and PSE diagnostic Systems. A total of 67 case notes were identified in which the above diagnoses had been made: 27 cases with ICD-9 ‘hysteria’ and 26 cases with ‘other reactive and not otherwise specified psychoses’. Using the DSM-III-R criteria, 27 cases were diagnosed as psychotic disorder NOS, 12 as brief reactive psychosis and 11 as bipolar disorder. Using the DSM-IV criteria, 21 cases were diagnosed as psychotic disorder NOS, 11 as mood disorder, 7 as brief disorder without stressor, and 12 as brief disorder with stressor. Using the ICD-10 criteria, 18 cases were diagnosed as unspecified non-organic psychosis, 12 as mood disorder, 10 as acute and transient psychotic disorder without stressor and 13 as acute and transient psychotic disorder with stressor. Using the PSE/catego program, the most common diagnoses were class ‘S’ schizophrenia (17), class ‘P?’ uncertain psychosis (16) and class ‘M+’ mixed and manic affective disorder (11). Using the kappa coefficient a very low level of agreement was found between ICD-9 ‘hysteria’ and ‘other reactive and non-specified psychoses’ and the corresponding categories of DSM-III-R and the PSE/catego program. We concluded that, although DSM-III-R provides operational criteria for brief reactive psychosis, and DSM-IV and ICD-10 provide such criteria for brief or acute psychotic disorder, these bear little relationship to the original concept of the disorder. The PSE/catego program provides a very systematic approach to symptomatology, but the diagnostic classes have little clinical usefulness.     

Classification of functional psychoses and its implication for prognosis: comparison between ICD-10 and DSM-IV

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine the agreement and differences between ICD-10 and DSM-IV in the classification of functional psychoses. Sampling and METHODS: In a sample of 218 first-hospitalised patients, ICD-10 diagnoses were compared with DSM-IV diagnoses. Functional psychoses of both diagnostic systems were classified into the four diagnostic groups schizophrenia, transient/episodic psychoses, delusional disorders and affective disorders. Based on information from a 15-year follow-up, it was examined which course is associated with each diagnostic group. RESULTS: Although in ICD-10 there was a higher frequency of schizophrenia and a lower one of affective disorders, a high agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV (kappa value of 0.82) was found. In both diagnostic systems, transient/episodic psychoses and affective disorders were mainly associated with a non-chronic course and schizophrenia was mainly associated with a chronic one. Nevertheless, several patients with transient/episodic psychoses showed a chronic course (ICD-10: 10%, DSM-IV: 15%) and more than one third of patients with schizophrenia a non-chronic one (ICD-10: 40%, DSM-IV: 33%). CONCLUSIONS: In the cross-sectional assessment, there is a high diagnostic agreement between ICD-10 and DSM-IV. With respect to the long-term course, the delimitation of transient/episodic psychoses from schizophrenia was neither completely achieved by ICD-10 nor by DSM-IV.     

The validity of schizophrenia diagnosis in the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: findings from a 10-year birth cohort sample

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic validity of schizophrenia in the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register (FHDR) with a large, epidemiologically representative sample using a multidiagnostic approach (DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, ICD-10), and to find additional criteria that could be used to improve the validity of schizophrenia diagnosis in future register-based research that utilizes the FHDR. The study population consisted of all individuals (n=877) who were born in Helsinki, Finland, between 1 January 1951 and 31 December 1960, and who had had at least one diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder in the FHDR. All their available hospital case notes were collected. The total number of subjects for whom case notes were obtained was 806. We used the OPCRIT system (version 3.4) to produce diagnoses according to ICD-10, DSM-III-R and DSM-IV criteria based on the information extracted from the hospital case notes. We examined the distribution of the DSM-III-R, DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnoses generated by the OPCRIT and calculated the proportion of individuals who received the same diagnosis in the FHDR and in the OPCRIT assessment. The proportion of subjects who received a core schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder) in both the FHDR and OPCRIT assessment varied between 75% (DSM-III-R criteria) and 78% (ICD-10 criteria). Of the subjects with a narrow schizophrenia diagnosis in the FHDR, between 74% (DSM-IV) and 78% (ICD-10) received a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the reassessment depending on the diagnostic criteria applied. Eighty per cent of those who had received a core schizophrenia spectrum FHDR diagnosis after 1982 (vs. 56% of those who had received their last schizophrenia diagnosis in 1982 or before) received a DSM-IV diagnosis of core schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Of the 58 subjects in the sample who had been given at various times diagnoses of both core schizophrenia diagnosis and bipolar I diagnosis in FHDR, 43% received a core schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis according to DSM-IV criteria. The validity of the FHDR schizophrenia diagnosis is acceptable for large-scale register studies and comparable with that of other Nordic registers. Diagnostic validity can be further improved by selecting subjects who have core schizophrenia spectrum disorder as the latest diagnosis, by omitting cases diagnosed before 1982, and by excluding cases with a register diagnoses of both a core schizophrenia spectrum and bipolar I disorder.     

Delirium among patients with and without dementia: does the diagnosis according to the DSM‐IV differ from the previous classifications?

BACKGROUND: Different diagnostic criteria differ in their capacity to identify subjects as delirious. It is not known how DSM-IV classification, compared with the DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10, identifies delirium among individuals with and without dementia and whether the symptom profiles differ between these two subgroups. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on patients (age > or = 70 years) in seven acute geriatric wards (n = 230) and in seven nursing-homes (n = 195) in Helsinki, Finland. Delirium was diagnosed according to the operationalized criteria according to the DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and clinical criteria of ICD-10. Dementia was defined according to consensus judgment among three geriatricians with concise information including: prior dementia diagnoses, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, operationalized criteria according to the DSM-IV, nurses and/or caregivers interviews, and the results of the brain CT/MRI and prior Mini-Mental State Examination scores, when available. RESULTS: According to the DSM-III, DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria of delirium 22.7, 23.5, 25.9 and 14.9% of the demented, and 12.9, 13.5, 23.5 and 2.9% of the non-demented, respectively, were diagnosed as delirious. In stepwise logistic regression analysis clouding of consciousness, perceptual disturbances, and disorganized thinking were the most significant contributors to delirium diagnosis according to the DSM-IV among individuals with dementia, whereas perceptual disturbances, motor disturbances, and disorientation were the most significant contributors among those without dementia. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV criteria of delirium identify new, often non-demented, subjects as being delirious, while ICD-10 is overly restrictive. The symptom profile of delirium was slightly different among individuals with and without dementia.     

Comparison of Composite International Diagnostic Interview and clinical DSM-III-R criteria checklist diagnoses.

This article describes a comparison of Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) diagnostic results and results based on clinicians' observation of CIDI assessments. Psychiatrists scored a DSM-III-R criteria checklist either while observing or after administering 20 CIDI interviews. Overall diagnostic concordance between the checklist and CIDI diagnoses was found to be good (kappa = 0.78). Good diagnostic agreement was also found for 3 groups of DSM-III-R disorders: depressive disorders (kappa = 0.84), psychoactive substance use disorders (kappa = 0.83) and anxiety phobic disorders (kappa = 0.76). These results are consistent with the results from a similar comparison between the CIDI and checklist results for ICD-10 diagnoses.     

Generalized anxiety disorder,obsessive-compulsive disorder and social phobia: sources of dissonance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV

The present study examined the diagnostic concordance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and social phobia. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to 1504 people, in a sample derived from community and clinic cases, and discrepant diagnoses were identified for ICD-10 and DSM-IV GAD, OCD and social phobia. The initial analysis yielded 243 positive GAD, 41 positive OCD, and 190 positive social phobia diagnoses on one or the other classification, yet only 54%, 64%, and 39% of these respective diagnoses were concordant on both classifications. After removing potential errors with the ICD-10-DCR criteria for GAD and in the way the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and scorer operationalized the diagnostic criteria there were 426 diagnoses in the three disorders of which 298 (70%) were concordant. The residual discordance reflects the magnitude of the difference between the two diagnostic systems and researchers should be aware of this when they are making cross-national comparisons of prevalence rates. Copyright © 1998 Whurr Publishers Ltd.     

The prevalence of somatoform disorders among internal medical inpatients

OBJECTIVE: To find the prevalence of somatoform disorders (SDs) among internal medical inpatients and to study the comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders. METHODS: Of 392 eligible consecutive medical inpatients, 294 (75%) accepted to participate and, using a two-phase design, were assessed for ICD and DSM-IV somatoform diagnoses and for ICD-10 psychiatric diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 18.1% (95% CI: 12.8-24.9%) of the patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for an ICD-10 disorder, and 20.2% (95% CI:14.7-27.2% ) for a DSM-IV SD. The prevalence of specified disorders revealed marked differences between the two diagnostic systems, e.g., concerning somatisation disorder (SD), which was more prevalent in the ICD-10 (5%) than in the DSM-IV (1.5%) equivalent. Quite the contrary was found in undifferentiated SD (0.7% in ICD-10 and 10% in DSM-IV). According to ICD-10 criteria, 3.5% had hypochondriasis, 2.6% a dissociative disorder, 3.2% a somatoform autonomic dysfunction, 1.5% had neurasthenia or persistent somatoform pain disorder, and 5% had an SD, unspecified. SDs were more prevalent among younger females. Thirty-six percent of the patients with SDs also had another psychiatric disorder, 11% a depression, and 25% an anxiety disorder. The physicians detected about 1/3 of the cases. CONCLUSION: Somatoform disorders were prevalent among internal medical inpatients especially among younger women.     

Computerized psychiatric diagnoses based on euclidean distances: a Chinese example.

Current diagnostic methods in psychiatry use sequential logical decision rules that generate a single diagnosis. Insufficient attention has been paid to parallel methods that can simultaneously determine the relative probability of many diagnoses. This study installed 45 items from various symptom scales on a portable computer and applied a euclidean distance formula to generate immediate diagnoses based on responses to the items. The reliability and validity of the method were assessed using Chinese psychiatric inpatients. Interrater reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.91) and 3-week test-retest reliability was fair (k = 0.50). The concordance of this method with clinicians' diagnoses and with diagnoses based on standardized Chinese diagnostic criteria was excellent (k = 0.73 and 0.76). Concordance with DSM-III-R diagnoses and ICD-10 diagnoses was fair (kappa = 0.55 and 0.65). The clinical utility of such parallel methods of psychiatric diagnosis deserves further evaluation.     

Panic and agoraphobia: sources of dissonance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV

The present study examined the diagnostic concordance between ICD-10 and DSM-IV for panic and agoraphobia in a sample derived from clinic and community cases. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview was administered to 1504 people and discrepant diagnoses were identified for the three pairs of ICD-10/DSM-IV panic and agoraphobia disorders. The initial analyses produced 271 diagnoses in the three disorders yet only 103 (38%) of the diagnoses were concordant on both classifications. After possible errors in the CIDI and in the construction of the diagnostic criteria had been removed, there were 245 diagnoses in the three disorders of which 137 (56%) were concordant. The two classifications identify different groups of people but use similar names for the diagnoses, a fact that could interfere with the orderly accumulation and integration of knowledge from international research. Copyright © 1998 Whurr Publishers Ltd.     

Comparison of Diagnostic Methods for Asperger Syndrome

Several different diagnostic sets of criteria exist for Asperger syndrome (AS), but there is no agreement on a gold standard. The aim of this study was to compare four diagnostic sets of criteria for AS: the ICD-10, the DSM-IV, the Gillberg & Gillberg, and the Szatmari criteria. The series consists of 36 children who had been referred to two centers with a tentative diagnosis of AS. The best agreement was between the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV criteria (Kappa coefficient 0.48), and the lowest between the Gillberg & Gillberg and Szatmari criteria (Kappa coefficient -0.21). The poor agreement between these sets of diagnostic criteria compromises the comparability of studies on AS.