Luis Hualparuca-Olivera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Julio Torales, Cristian Ramos-Vera, Elsa Vigo-Ayasta, Antonio Ventriglio
{"title":"ICD-11对精神、行为或神经发育障碍分类的临床描述和诊断要求的临床应用:系统回顾。","authors":"Luis Hualparuca-Olivera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Julio Torales, Cristian Ramos-Vera, Elsa Vigo-Ayasta, Antonio Ventriglio","doi":"10.1177/00332941251335596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"332941251335596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for the Classification of Mental, Behavioral or Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Luis Hualparuca-Olivera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Julio Torales, Cristian Ramos-Vera, Elsa Vigo-Ayasta, Antonio Ventriglio\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941251335596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"332941251335596\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251335596\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251335596","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
已经进行了病例对照实地研究、生态实施实地研究以及定性或混合方法学研究,以评估ICD-11临床描述和诊断要求(ICD-11 CDDR)在诊断精神障碍方面的临床效用。本系统综述试图从世界不同地区的精神卫生专业人员和患者的角度分析和综合这些指南的临床效用指标。系统检索了Science Direct、b谷歌Scholar、PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus 5个数据库。相关研究有明确的入选标准,共纳入19项研究。将研究特征制成表格,对方法质量进行评估,并使用聚合叙事综合对研究结果进行总结。总体结果表明,ICD-11 CDDR的临床应用对大多数(78.95%)分析大范围精神障碍的研究是积极的。对障碍组的分析也显示了同样的趋势。几乎只有定性或混合研究确定了该诊断系统的负面方面或障碍。支持ICD-11 CDDR在精神障碍诊断中的临床应用。未来的研究可以解决对ICD-11 CDDR表现的孤立负面结果的担忧。最后,有必要扩大MHPs和政策制定者在临床实践中使用这些指南的培训计划的范围。
Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements for the Classification of Mental, Behavioral or Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Case-controlled field studies, ecological implementation field studies, and qualitative or mixed methodology studies have been conducted to evaluate the clinical utility of the ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements (ICD-11 CDDR) for the diagnosis of mental disorders. This systematic review sought to analyze and synthesize the clinical utility indices of these guidelines from the perspectives of mental health professionals (MHPs) and patients from different regions of the world. A systematic search was carried out in five databases Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. The relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria, resulting in 19 included studies. The study characteristics were tabulated, methodological quality was assessed, and findings were summarized using convergent narrative synthesis. The overall findings indicated that the clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR was positive for the majority of studies (78.95%) that analyzed a wide range of mental disorders. Analyses at the level of the disorder groups also revealed the same trend. Almost only qualitative or mixed studies have identified negative aspects or obstacles of this diagnostic system. The clinical utility of the ICD-11 CDDR for the diagnosis of mental disorders is supported. Future research could resolve concerns regarding the isolated negative outcomes of ICD-11 CDDR performance. Finally, it is necessary to expand the scope of the training programs for MHPs and policymakers regarding the use of these guidelines in clinical practice.