Comparison of DSM-5 and proposed ICD-11 criteria for PTSD with DSM-IV and ICD-10: changes in PTSD prevalence in military personnel

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftForschungsartikelBeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Annika Kuester - , Freie Universität (FU) Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Kai Köhler - , Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Thomas Ehring - , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU) (Autor:in)
  • Christine Knaevelsrud - , Freie Universität (FU) Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Louisa Kober - , Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (Autor:in)
  • Antje Krüger-Gottschalk - , Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Autor:in)
  • Ingo Schäfer - , Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) (Autor:in)
  • Julia Schellong - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik (Autor:in)
  • Ulrich Wesemann - , Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin (Autor:in)
  • Heinrich Rau - , Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin (Autor:in)

Abstract

Background: Recently, changes have been introduced to the diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Objectives:This study investigated the effect of the diagnostic changes made from DSM-IV to DSM-5 and from ICD-10 to the proposed ICD-11. The concordance of provisional PTSD prevalence between the diagnostic criteria was examined in a convenience sample of 100 members of the German Armed Forces. Method: Based on questionnaire measurements, provisional PTSD prevalence was assessed according to DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10, and proposed ICD-11 criteria. Consistency of the diagnostic status across the diagnostic systems was statistically evaluated. Results: Provisional PTSD prevalence was the same for DSM-IV and DSM-5 (both 56%) and comparable under DSM-5 versus ICD-11 proposal (48%). Agreement between DSM-IV and DSM-5, and between DSM-5 and the proposed ICD-11, was high (both p < .001). Provisional PTSD prevalence was significantly increased under ICD-11 proposal compared to ICD-10 (30%) which was mainly due to the deletion of the time criterion. Agreement between ICD-10 and the proposed ICD-11 was low (p = .014). Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence for a satisfactory concordance between provisional PTSD prevalence based on the diagnostic criteria for PTSD that are defined using DSM-IV, DSM-5, and proposed ICD-11. This supports the assumption of a set of PTSD core symptoms as suggested in the ICD-11 proposal, when at the same time a satisfactory concordance between ICD-11 proposal and DSM was given. The finding of increased provisional PTSD prevalence under ICD-11 proposal in contrast to ICD-10 can be of guidance for future epidemiological research on PTSD prevalence, especially concerning further investigations on the impact, appropriateness, and usefulness of the time criterion included in ICD-10 versus the consequences of its deletion as proposed for ICD-11.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)1386988
FachzeitschriftEuropean Journal of Psychotraumatology
Jahrgang8
Ausgabenummer1
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 2017
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

PubMed 29163862
PubMedCentral PMC5687795
Scopus 85051801705

Schlagworte