OBJECTIVE: In the context of the development of DSM-V and ICD-11 it appears to be useful to get further data on the validity of the diagnostic differentiation between schizophrenic and affective disorders. This study investigated the relevance of the main diagnostic groups schizophrenia, schizoaffective psychosis and affective disorder in the context of different diagnostic systems (ICD-9, ICD-10, DSM -IV), assessing their time stability, long-term courses, types and functional outcome. METHODS: A total of 323 first hospitalized inpatients of the Psychiatric Department of the University Munich were recruited at index time. The full follow-up evaluation including standardized assessment procedures could be performed in 197 patients. RESULTS: The re-diagnosis of the patients' disorders shows that with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 or DSM-IV, the group of affective disorders increased numerically while the diagnostic groups of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders decreased in size. The structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID) analysis showed that altogether ICD-10 and DSM-IV had a relatively high diagnostic stability. Of the patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia, 57% had a chronic course; 61% of the patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia. Patients with affective disorders, according either to ICD-10 or DSM-IV, had in more than 90% of the cases an episodic-remitting course. In terms of prediction of long-term outcome regarding the differentiation between chronic and non-chronic course, the ICD-10 diagnoses did give a slightly better predictive result than a dimensional approach based on the key psychopathological syndrome scores. CONCLUSIONS: The differentiation between schizophrenic and affective disorders seems meaningful especially under predictive aspects. A dimensional syndromatological description does not exceed the predictive power of the investigated main diagnostic categories, but might increase the clinically relevant information.
OBJECTIVE: In the context of the development of DSM-V and ICD-11 it appears to be useful to get further data on the validity of the diagnostic differentiation between schizophrenic and affective disorders. This study investigated the relevance of the main diagnostic groups schizophrenia, schizoaffective psychosis and affective disorder in the context of different diagnostic systems (ICD-9, ICD-10, DSM -IV), assessing their time stability, long-term courses, types and functional outcome. METHODS: A total of 323 first hospitalized inpatients of the Psychiatric Department of the University Munich were recruited at index time. The full follow-up evaluation including standardized assessment procedures could be performed in 197 patients. RESULTS: The re-diagnosis of the patients' disorders shows that with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 or DSM-IV, the group of affective disorders increased numerically while the diagnostic groups of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders decreased in size. The structured clinical interview for DSM-IV (SCID) analysis showed that altogether ICD-10 and DSM-IV had a relatively high diagnostic stability. Of the patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenia, 57% had a chronic course; 61% of the patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia. Patients with affective disorders, according either to ICD-10 or DSM-IV, had in more than 90% of the cases an episodic-remitting course. In terms of prediction of long-term outcome regarding the differentiation between chronic and non-chronic course, the ICD-10 diagnoses did give a slightly better predictive result than a dimensional approach based on the key psychopathological syndrome scores. CONCLUSIONS: The differentiation between schizophrenic and affective disorders seems meaningful especially under predictive aspects. A dimensional syndromatological description does not exceed the predictive power of the investigated main diagnostic categories, but might increase the clinically relevant information.
Authors: Ángel Del Rey-Mejías; David Fraguas; Covadonga M Díaz-Caneja; Laura Pina-Camacho; Josefina Castro-Fornieles; Inmaculada Baeza; Ana Espliego; Jessica Merchán-Naranjo; Ana González-Pinto; Elena de la Serna; Beatriz Payá; Montserrat Graell; Celso Arango; Mara Parellada Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Berend Malchow; Katriona Keller; Alkomiet Hasan; Sebastian Dörfler; Thomas Schneider-Axmann; Ursula Hillmer-Vogel; William G Honer; Thomas G Schulze; Andree Niklas; Thomas Wobrock; Andrea Schmitt; Peter Falkai Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Ilja Spellmann; Rebecca Schennach; Florian Seemüller; Sebastian Meyer; Richard Musil; Markus Jäger; Max Schmauß; Gerd Laux; Herbert Pfeiffer; Dieter Naber; Lutz G Schmidt; Wolfgang Gaebel; Joachim Klosterkötter; Isabella Heuser; Michael Bauer; Mazda Adli; Joachim Zeiler; Wolfram Bender; Klaus-Thomas Kronmüller; Marcus Ising; Peter Brieger; Wolfgang Maier; Matthias R Lemke; Eckart Rüther; Stefan Klingberg; Markus Gastpar; Michael Riedel; Hans-Jürgen Möller Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Hans-Jürgen Möller; Markus Jäger; Michael Riedel; Michael Obermeier; Anton Strauss; Ronald Bottlender Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Ann Faerden; Elizabeth Ann Barrett; Ragnar Nesvåg; Svein Friis; Arnstein Finset; Stephen R Marder; Joseph Ventura; Ole A Andreassen; Ingrid Agartz; Ingrid Melle Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.222