BACKGROUND: This study was designed to examine the concordance of proposed DSM-V posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) criteria with DSM-IV classification rules and examine the impact of the proposed DSM-V PTSD criteria on prevalence. METHOD: The sample (N = 185) included participants who were recruited for studies focused on trauma and health conducted at an academic medical center and VA medical center in the southeastern United States. The prevalence and concordance between DSM-IV and the proposed DSM-V classifications were calculated based on results from structured clinical interviews. Prevalence rates and diagnostic efficiency indices including sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and Kappa were calculated for each of the possible ways to define DSM-V PTSD. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of the sample reported an event that met both DSM-IV PTSD Criterion A1 and A2, but only 89% reported a trauma that met Criterion A on DSM-V. Results examining concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-V algorithms indicated that several of the algorithms had AUCs above 0.90. The requirement of two symptoms from both Clusters D and E provided strong concordance to DSM-IV (AUC = 0.93; Kappa = 0.86) and a greater balance between sensitivity and specificity than requiring three symptoms in both Clusters D and E. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several significant changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD for DSM-V, several possible classification rules provided good concordance with DSM-IV. The magnitude of the impact of DSM-V decision rules on prevalence will be largely affected by the DSM-IV PTSD base rate in the population of interest.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to examine the concordance of proposed DSM-V posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) criteria with DSM-IV classification rules and examine the impact of the proposed DSM-V PTSD criteria on prevalence. METHOD: The sample (N = 185) included participants who were recruited for studies focused on trauma and health conducted at an academic medical center and VA medical center in the southeastern United States. The prevalence and concordance between DSM-IV and the proposed DSM-V classifications were calculated based on results from structured clinical interviews. Prevalence rates and diagnostic efficiency indices including sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and Kappa were calculated for each of the possible ways to define DSM-V PTSD. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of the sample reported an event that met both DSM-IV PTSD Criterion A1 and A2, but only 89% reported a trauma that met Criterion A on DSM-V. Results examining concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-V algorithms indicated that several of the algorithms had AUCs above 0.90. The requirement of two symptoms from both Clusters D and E provided strong concordance to DSM-IV (AUC = 0.93; Kappa = 0.86) and a greater balance between sensitivity and specificity than requiring three symptoms in both Clusters D and E. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several significant changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD for DSM-V, several possible classification rules provided good concordance with DSM-IV. The magnitude of the impact of DSM-V decision rules on prevalence will be largely affected by the DSM-IV PTSD base rate in the population of interest.
Authors: Jon D Elhai; Megan E Miller; Julian D Ford; Tracey L Biehn; Patrick A Palmieri; B Christopher Frueh Journal: J Anxiety Disord Date: 2011-09-03
Authors: David Forbes; Susan Fletcher; Emma Lockwood; Meaghan O'Donnell; Mark Creamer; Richard A Bryant; Alexander McFarlane; Derrick Silove Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Carolina P Clancy; Anna Graybeal; Whitney P Tompson; Kourtni S Badgett; Michelle E Feldman; Patrick S Calhoun; Alaattin Erkanli; Michael A Hertzberg; Jean C Beckham Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Kathryn M Magruder; B Christopher Frueh; Rebecca G Knapp; Lori Davis; Mark B Hamner; Renée Hebert Martin; Paul B Gold; George W Arana Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Matthew J Friedman; Patricia A Resick; Richard A Bryant; James Strain; Mardi Horowitz; David Spiegel Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Anthony J Rosellini; Murray B Stein; Lisa J Colpe; Steven G Heeringa; Maria V Petukhova; Nancy A Sampson; Michael Schoenbaum; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Krishnan Radhakrishnan; Mihaela Aslan; Kelly M Harrington; Robert H Pietrzak; Grant Huang; Sumitra Muralidhar; Kelly Cho; Rachel Quaden; David Gagnon; Saiju Pyarajan; Ning Sun; Hongyu Zhao; Michael Gaziano; John Concato; Murray B Stein; Joel Gelernter Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Dean G Kilpatrick; Heidi S Resnick; Melissa E Milanak; Mark W Miller; Katherine M Keyes; Matthew J Friedman Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2013-10
Authors: Hong Xie; Nickelas Huffman; Chia-Hao Shih; Andrew S Cotton; Mark Buehler; Kristopher R Brickman; John T Wall; Xin Wang Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Emily Gentes; Paul A Dennis; Nathan A Kimbrel; Angela C Kirby; Lauren P Hair; Jean C Beckham; Patrick S Calhoun Journal: Psychopathol Rev Date: 2015
Authors: Nathan T Kearns; Heidemarie Blumenthal; Ateka A Contractor; Elizabeth R Aston; Jane Metrik Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.591