Does change in definition of psychotic symptoms in diagnosis of schizophrenia in DSM-5 affect caseness?
Introduction
The definition of schizophrenia has evolved through the six editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I, DSM-II, DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 1952, American Psychiatric Association, 1968, American Psychiatric Association, 1980, American Psychiatric Association, 1987, American Psychiatric Association, 1994, American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Since the third edition of the DSM and the ninth edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD, World Health Organization, 1978), psychotic symptoms have been mandatory for the diagnosis of schizophrenia and Schneiderian first-rank symptoms (FRS) (Schneider, 1959, Mellor, 1970) have received a special place in its definition (Wing and Nixon, 1975). In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), whereas two characteristic symptoms are necessary to meet criterion A, only one symptom is required if it is either a bizarre delusion or if it is an auditory hallucination with running commentary or conversing voices. The appropriateness of such special treatment of FRS has been questioned because of the absence of data indicating any diagnostic specificity or prognostic significance (Carpenter et al., 1973, Carpenter and Strauss, 1974, Kendell et al., 1979, Crichton, 1996, Peralta and Cuesta, 1999, Jansson and Parnas, 2007, Nordgaard et al., 2008, Tandon and Maj, 2008, Ihara et al., 2009, Tandon, 2012) and the relatively poor reliability in diagnosing bizarreness of delusions (Flaum and Andreasen, 1991, Spitzer et al., 1993, Mojtabai and Nicholson, 1995, Nakaya et al., 2002, Mullen, 2003, Bell et al., 2006, Cermolacce et al., 2010). Because of these concerns, FRS will no longer receive special emphasis in DSM-5 and ICD-11 (Tandon and Carpenter, 2013, Gaebel et al., 2013). The impact of this change on the prevalence of schizophrenia is not known.
Psychotic symptoms have been considered mandatory for a diagnosis of schizophrenia (Bruijnzeel and Tandon, 2011) and the diagnosis of simple schizophrenia has been eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual since its third edition (DSM-III). Negative symptoms, that are the defining feature of simple schizophrenia, contribute significantly to the poor outcome associated with schizophrenic illness (Tandon et al., 2009). In an effort to provide appropriate prominence to negative symptoms, they were added as one of five characteristic symptoms in criterion A in DSM-IV (Flaum et al., 1998). This change, however, allowed patients with only negative symptoms and disorganized behavior (akin to simple schizophrenia) to receive a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia. To address this apparent oversight in DSM-IV, DSM-5 has added a requirement that at least one of the two mandatory characteristic symptoms to meet criterion A be delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized speech. The impact of this change on the prevalence of schizophrenia has not been evaluated.
To assess the impact of these two DSM-5 changes in criterion A on the prevalence of schizophrenia, we examined a research database of 221 individuals with DSM-IV schizophrenia. We studied the prevalence of bizarre delusions and Schneiderian hallucinations and their co-occurrence with other characteristic symptoms. We measured the proportion of individuals who met DSM-IV criterion A solely by virtue of a single Schneiderian FRS. We also evaluated the proportion of individuals with DSM-IV schizophrenia who did not have any delusion, hallucination, or disorganized speech.
Section snippets
Methods
The sample consisted of 221 well-characterized patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia and on whom structured diagnostic data were available. They had all participated in some clinical or pathophysiology research study and had received a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID, First et al., 1996) and a detailed psychiatric interview as part of their diagnostic assessment (see Tandon et al., 2000 for details).
In coding SCID items for bizarre delusions [B11–B15], running commentary
Results
Bizarre delusions and “Schneiderian” hallucinations were present in a significant proportion of DSM-IV schizophrenia patients (47.1% and 35.6%, respectively) in our sample, but only one patient met criterion A solely on the basis of a single bizarre delusion (0.46%) and no patient met criterion A solely on the basis of a single Schneiderian hallucination (Table 1). The relative proportions of other criterion A symptoms was similar in patients with bizarre and non-bizarre delusions. Likewise,
Discussion
Our data suggest that changes from DSM-IV to DSM-5 in the definition of criterion A symptoms should have little impact on caseness of schizophrenia, with less than 2% of patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia not meeting DSM-5 criteria because of these changes. Our findings are similar to those of the two other studies that have investigated this issue (Peralta and Cuesta, 1999, Allardyce et al., 2007). These datasets were recently re-analyzed to evaluate these questions (personal communication
References (38)
- et al.
Diagnosing delusions: a review of inter-rater reliability
Schizophrenia Research
(2006) - et al.
Simple schizophrenia revisited
Comprehensive Psychiatry
(1990) - et al.
The reliability of “bizarre” delusions
Comprehensive Psychiatry
(1991) - et al.
Nosological status and definition of schizophrenia: some considerations for DSM-V
Asian Journal of Psychiatry
(2008) - et al.
Psychotic-phasic and deficit-enduring subtypes of negative symptoms in schizophrenia: biological markers and relationship to outcome
Schizophrenia Research
(2000) - et al.
Schizophrenia, “Just the Facts”. 4. Clinical features and concept
Schizophrenia Research
(2009) - et al.
Do symptom dimensions or categorical diagnoses best discriminate between known factors for psychosis?
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
(2007) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 1st edition (DSM-I)
(1952)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 2nd edition (DSM-II)
(1968)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 3rd edition (DSM-III)
(1980)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 3rd edition revised (DSM-III-R)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 4th edition (DSM-IV)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 4th edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)
The concept of schizophrenia: from the 1850s to the DSM-5
Psychiatric Annals
Cross-cultural evaluation of Schneider's first-rank symptoms in schizophrenia
American Journal of Psychiatry
Are there pathognomonic symptoms in schizophrenia?
Archives of General Psychiatry
What is bizarre about bizarre delusions? A critical review
Schizophrenia Bulletin
First-rank symptoms or rank-and-file symptoms?
British Journal of Psychiatry
Diagnostic criteria in schizophrenia: accentuate the positive
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Cited by (21)
The schizophrenia syndrome, circa 2024: What we know and how that informs its nature
2024, Schizophrenia ResearchReinventing schizophrenia: Updating the construct ‐ Primary schizophrenia 2021 - The road ahead ‐
2022, Schizophrenia ResearchCitation Excerpt :On the basis of these developments, the modified schizophrenia construct in 2021 is still alive and viable and may probably improve contemporary clinical practice globally. Since there will be initially some mapping problems between ICD-10 and ICD-11 due to the more differentiated structure of the latter, this and its modified diagnostic criteria may possibly influence caseness or leading to prevalence shifts, which, however, was not the case for DSM-5 compared with DSM-IV (Tandon et al., 2013b) but needs to be evaluated by double-coding of ICD-10/11 during the transition and implementation phase (WHO, 2019). Accordingly, the revised schizophrenia category from the perspectives of global applicability, utility and reliability has salvaged the construct for clinical practice until more or less ‘radical’ innovative classificatory approaches as mentioned above might be demonstrating their superiority also in validity – thereby also stimulating development of new versions of causal treatment and care in correspondingly transformed mental healthcare systems.
Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with a history of bizarre delusions in a cross-diagnostic sample of individuals with psychotic disorders
2018, Asian Journal of PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Due to this lack of diagnostic specificity, the special weight given to BizD for SZ diagnosis in earlier versions of DSM, has been removed in DSM-V (Tandon et al., 2013b). However, it is expected that the impact of this change on caseness from DSM-IV to DSM-V will be limited, as studies show that only a negligible portion of patients were diagnosed with DSM-IV SZ relying solely on BizD (Shinn et al., 2013; Tandon et al., 2013a). Association of BizDs with clinical and demographic variables were examined in only three studies.
Shall we really say goodbye to first rank symptoms?
2016, European PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Nevertheless, we are concerned that ceasing to list and specifically assess other FRS such as delusional perceptions or complex hallucinations and instead referring to “delusions of any kind” and “hallucinations of any modality” may increase misdiagnosis of somatic disorders with psychotic features as schizophrenia. We propose that FRS should continue to be listed among the criteria to diagnose schizophrenia, while agreeing that one FRS should never be enough to diagnose schizophrenia [66]. However, FRS should be used as a discriminative tool: absence of FRS should caution clinicians from diagnosing schizophrenia, since any kind of hallucination or delusion is frequently found in a multitude of somatic and mental disorders, while evidence – albeit incomplete – indicates that FRS occur rarely in somatic disorders [38,39].
Problems with autism, catatonia and schizophrenia in DSM-5
2014, Schizophrenia Research