Dataset Information

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches.

Methods

Clinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability.

Results

Compared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability.

Conclusions

The formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.

SUBMITTER: Evans SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7657976 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

Evans Spencer C SC Roberts Michael C MC Keeley Jared W JW Rebello Tahilia J TJ de la Peña Francisco F Lochman John E JE Burke Jeffrey D JD Fite Paula J PJ Ezpeleta Lourdes L Matthys Walter W Youngstrom Eric A EA Matsumoto Chihiro C Andrews Howard F HF Elena Medina-Mora María M Ayuso-Mateos José L JL Khoury Brigitte B Kulygina Mayya M Robles Rebeca R Sharan Pratap P Zhao Min M Reed Geoffrey M GM

Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines 20200512 3

<h4>Background</h4>Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In ...[more]

PMID: 32396664

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is widely used in many countries to screen women for depression in the perinatal period. However, across studies the psychometric properties and cutoff scores of the EPDS have varied considerably; potentially due to different depression criteria and diagnostic systems being used. Therefore, we validated the Danish EPDS against a depression diagnosis according to both DSM-5 and ICD-10. Furthermore, we examined whether the Danish EPDS is multidimensional, as it has previously been suggested. METHODS:Women (N = 324) were recruited after routine screenings with the EPDS between 2 and 10 months postpartum (T1). At a subsequent home visit (T2), the EPDS and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 were administered. Diagnostic interviews were audio recorded to enable subsequent coding for ICD-10 diagnoses and inter-rater reliability analysis. A two-phase stratified sampling strategy with three sampling categories (EPDS-score at T1) was used. Using the distribution of 4931 T1 EPDS-scores from the same population from which we sampled the participants, we used sampling weighing to reweight the sample. The calculation of weights was based upon the mother's sampling category at T1 (i.e. the probability of being sampled) and the weights were applied when assessing the receiver operation characteristics (ROCs) of the EPDS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the ROC curve were computed from the reweighted data for all relevant cutoff values. CIs were computed by embedding the calculations in a weighted logistic regression. Exploratory factor analysis was done using oblique rotation. Parallel analysis was used to assess the number of factors. RESULTS:A score of 11 or more was found to be the optimal cutoff for depression according to both DSM-5 and ICD-10 criteria. Factor analysis suggested that the Danish EPDS consists of three factors, including an 'anxiety factor'. CONCLUSIONS:The Danish EPDS has reasonable sensitivity and specificity at a cutoff score of 11 or more. There are no notable differences with respect to using ICD-10 or DSM-5 criteria for depression in terms of optimal cutoff. The variation in cutoff scores is likely to be due to cultural variations in the expression of depressive symptoms.

Project description:BackgroundValidity of current International Classification of Disease/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (ICD/DSM) first episode psychosis diagnoses is essential in clinical practice, research, training and public health.MethodWe provide a meta-analytical estimate of prospective diagnostic stability and instability in ICD-10 or DSM-IV first episode diagnoses of functional psychoses. Independent extraction by multiple observers. Random effect meta-analysis conducted with the "metaprop," "metaninf," "metafunnel," "metabias," and "metareg" packages of STATA13.1. Moderators were tested with meta-regression analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 index. Sensitivity analyses tested robustness of results. Publication biases were assessed with funnel plots and Egger's test.Findings42 studies and 45 samples were included, for a total of 14 484 first episode patients and an average follow-up of 4.5 years. Prospective diagnostic stability ranked: schizophrenia 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.95), affective spectrum psychoses 0.84 (95% CI 0.79-0.89), schizoaffective disorder 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.73), substance-induced psychotic disorder 0.66 (95% CI 0.51-0.81), delusional disorder 0.59 (95% CI 0.47-0.71), acute and transient psychotic disorder/brief psychotic disorder 0.56 (95% CI 0.62-0.60), psychosis not otherwise specified 0.36 (95% CI 0.27-0.45, schizophreniform disorder 0.29 (95% CI 0.22-0.38). Diagnostic stability within schizophrenia spectrum psychoses was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89-0.97); changes to affective spectrum psychoses were 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.08). About 0.10 (95% CI 0.05-0.15) of affective spectrum psychoses changed to schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. Across the other psychotic diagnoses there was high diagnostic instability, mostly to schizophrenia.InterpretationThere is meta-analytical evidence for high prospective diagnostic stability in schizophrenia spectrum and affective spectrum psychoses, with no significant ICD/DSM differences. These results may inform the development of new treatment guidelines for early psychosis and impact drug licensing from regulatory agencies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to assess the feasibility of replacing the International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) with the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision (ICD-11) for morbidity coding based on content analysis.Materials and methodsThe most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes from each chapter covering 60% of patients were identified from Medicare claims and hospital data. Each ICD-10-CM code was recoded in the ICD-11, using postcoordination (combination of codes) if necessary. Recoding was performed by 2 terminologists independently. Failure analysis was done for cases where full representation was not achieved even with postcoordination. After recoding, the coding guidance (inclusions, exclusions, and index) of the ICD-10-CM and ICD-11 codes were reviewed for conflict.ResultsOverall, 23.5% of 943 codes could be fully represented by the ICD-11 without postcoordination. Postcoordination is the potential game changer. It supports the full representation of 8.6% of 943 codes. Moreover, with the addition of only 9 extension codes, postcoordination supports the full representation of 35.2% of 943 codes. Coding guidance review identified potential conflicts in 10% of codes, but mostly not affecting recoding. The majority of the conflicts resulted from differences in granularity and default coding assumptions between the ICD-11 and ICD-10-CM.ConclusionsWith some minor enhancements to postcoordination, the ICD-11 can fully represent almost 60% of the most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes. Even without postcoordination, 23.5% full representation is comparable to the 24.3% of ICD-9-CM codes with exact match in the ICD-10-CM, so migrating from the ICD-10-CM to the ICD-11 is not necessarily more disruptive than from the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification to the ICD-10-CM. Therefore, the ICD-11 (without a CM) should be considered as a candidate to replace the ICD-10-CM for morbidity coding.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets