Clinical research diagnostic criteria for bipolar illness (CRDC-BP): rationale and validity.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
S Nassir Ghaemi, Jules Angst, Paul A Vohringer, Eric A Youngstrom, James Phelps, Philip B Mitchell, Roger S McIntyre, Michael Bauer, Eduard Vieta, Samuel Gershon
{"title":"Clinical research diagnostic criteria for bipolar illness (CRDC-BP): rationale and validity.","authors":"S Nassir Ghaemi,&nbsp;Jules Angst,&nbsp;Paul A Vohringer,&nbsp;Eric A Youngstrom,&nbsp;James Phelps,&nbsp;Philip B Mitchell,&nbsp;Roger S McIntyre,&nbsp;Michael Bauer,&nbsp;Eduard Vieta,&nbsp;Samuel Gershon","doi":"10.1186/s40345-022-00267-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the 1970 s, scientific research on psychiatric nosology was summarized in Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC), based solely on empirical data, an important source for the third revision of the official nomenclature of the American Psychiatric Association in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Third Edition (DSM-III). The intervening years, especially with the fourth edition in 1994, saw a shift to a more overtly \"pragmatic\" approach to diagnostic definitions, which were constructed for many purposes, with research evidence being only one consideration. The latest editions have been criticized as failing to be useful for research. Biological and clinical research rests on the validity of diagnostic definitions that are supported by firm empirical foundations, but critics note that DSM criteria have failed to prioritize research data in favor of \"pragmatic\" considerations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on prior work of the International Society for Bipolar Diagnostic Guidelines Task Force, we propose here Clinical Research Diagnostic Criteria for Bipolar Illness (CRDC-BP) for use in research studies, with the hope that these criteria may lead to further refinement of diagnostic definitions for other major mental illnesses in the future. New proposals are provided for mixed states, mood temperaments, and duration of episodes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A new CRDC could provide guidance toward an empirically-based, scientific psychiatric nosology, and provide an alternative clinical diagnostic approach to the DSM system.</p>","PeriodicalId":13944,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Bipolar Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9561456/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Bipolar Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40345-022-00267-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: In the 1970 s, scientific research on psychiatric nosology was summarized in Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC), based solely on empirical data, an important source for the third revision of the official nomenclature of the American Psychiatric Association in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Third Edition (DSM-III). The intervening years, especially with the fourth edition in 1994, saw a shift to a more overtly "pragmatic" approach to diagnostic definitions, which were constructed for many purposes, with research evidence being only one consideration. The latest editions have been criticized as failing to be useful for research. Biological and clinical research rests on the validity of diagnostic definitions that are supported by firm empirical foundations, but critics note that DSM criteria have failed to prioritize research data in favor of "pragmatic" considerations.

Results: Based on prior work of the International Society for Bipolar Diagnostic Guidelines Task Force, we propose here Clinical Research Diagnostic Criteria for Bipolar Illness (CRDC-BP) for use in research studies, with the hope that these criteria may lead to further refinement of diagnostic definitions for other major mental illnesses in the future. New proposals are provided for mixed states, mood temperaments, and duration of episodes.

Conclusions: A new CRDC could provide guidance toward an empirically-based, scientific psychiatric nosology, and provide an alternative clinical diagnostic approach to the DSM system.

双相情感障碍临床研究诊断标准(CRDC-BP):理论基础和有效性。
背景:20世纪70年代,精神病学的科学研究被总结为研究诊断标准(RDC),完全基于经验数据,这是1980年美国精神病学协会第三次修订官方命名法《诊断与统计手册》第三版(DSM-III)的重要来源。在此期间,特别是1994年的第四版,我们看到诊断定义转向了一种更明显的“实用主义”方法,这种方法是为了许多目的而构建的,研究证据只是一个考虑因素。最新的版本被批评为对研究没有帮助。生物学和临床研究依赖于由坚实的经验基础支持的诊断定义的有效性,但批评者指出,DSM标准未能优先考虑研究数据,而倾向于“务实”的考虑。结果:基于国际双相诊断指南工作组之前的工作,我们在此提出双相临床研究诊断标准(CRDC-BP)用于研究,希望这些标准可以在未来进一步完善其他主要精神疾病的诊断定义。新的建议提供了混合状态,情绪气质和情节的持续时间。结论:新的CRDC可为建立以经验为基础的科学精神病学分类学提供指导,并为DSM系统提供另一种临床诊断方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Bipolar Disorders
International Journal of Bipolar Disorders Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Bipolar Disorders is a peer-reviewed, open access online journal published under the SpringerOpen brand. It publishes contributions from the broad range of clinical, psychological and biological research in bipolar disorders. It is the official journal of the ECNP-ENBREC (European Network of Bipolar Research Expert Centres ) Bipolar Disorders Network, the International Group for the study of Lithium Treated Patients (IGSLi) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bipolare Störungen (DGBS) and invites clinicians and researchers from around the globe to submit original research papers, short research communications, reviews, guidelines, case reports and letters to the editor that help to enhance understanding of bipolar disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信