Andreas Lundin1, Mats Hallgren1, Mikael Forsman2, Yvonne Forsell1. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to employ the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), in a general population sample and to compare the diagnostic classifications and prevalence with those of DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10). METHOD: We used a stratified random sample of 1,091 participants (ages 18-64) in Stockholm County, who were interviewed between 1998 and 2002. A semistructured interview was conducted using Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Diagnoses were made according to DSM-5, DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10. Agreement was studied using Cohen's κ. RESULTS: The prevalence of DSM-5 AUD was 11.0%, with corresponding dependence or abuse/harm diagnosis being 8.7% for DSM-IV, 8.5% for DSM-III-R, and 4.9% for ICD-10. With the shift from DSM-IV to DSM-5, 3.2% of those with no disorder were reclassified as mild AUD, whereas 28.9% of those with DSM-IV abuse were reclassified as having no disorder. The majority of the "new cases" had two DSM-IV dependence criteria, and few endorsed the new DSM-5 craving criteria. Cohen's κ between DSM-5 AUD and dependence or abuse/harm was as follows: DSM-IV, .84, DSM-III-R, .83, and ICD-10, .62. These findings were lower than the κ between the older systems: between DSM-IV and DSM-III-R, .98, between DSM-IV and ICD-10, .70, and between DSM-III-R and ICD- 10, .72. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study population, there were more undiagnosed DSM-IV cases being diagnosed as AUD using DSM-5 than vice versa, but in total the number of cases increased moderately when going from DSM-IV to DSM-5. Concerning reliability, there are substantial to almost perfect agreements between DSM-5 classifications of AUDs and those of DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to employ the criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), in a general population sample and to compare the diagnostic classifications and prevalence with those of DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10). METHOD: We used a stratified random sample of 1,091 participants (ages 18-64) in Stockholm County, who were interviewed between 1998 and 2002. A semistructured interview was conducted using Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Diagnoses were made according to DSM-5, DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10. Agreement was studied using Cohen's κ. RESULTS: The prevalence of DSM-5 AUD was 11.0%, with corresponding dependence or abuse/harm diagnosis being 8.7% for DSM-IV, 8.5% for DSM-III-R, and 4.9% for ICD-10. With the shift from DSM-IV to DSM-5, 3.2% of those with no disorder were reclassified as mild AUD, whereas 28.9% of those with DSM-IV abuse were reclassified as having no disorder. The majority of the "new cases" had two DSM-IV dependence criteria, and few endorsed the new DSM-5 craving criteria. Cohen's κ between DSM-5 AUD and dependence or abuse/harm was as follows: DSM-IV, .84, DSM-III-R, .83, and ICD-10, .62. These findings were lower than the κ between the older systems: between DSM-IV and DSM-III-R, .98, between DSM-IV and ICD-10, .70, and between DSM-III-R and ICD- 10, .72. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study population, there were more undiagnosed DSM-IV cases being diagnosed as AUD using DSM-5 than vice versa, but in total the number of cases increased moderately when going from DSM-IV to DSM-5. Concerning reliability, there are substantial to almost perfect agreements between DSM-5 classifications of AUDs and those of DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10.
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Chrianna Bharat; Raimondo Bruno; Meyer D Glantz; Nancy A Sampson; Luise Lago; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Jordi Alonso; Laura Helena Andrade; Brendan Bunting; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida; Alfredo H Cia; Oye Gureje; Elie G Karam; Mohammad Khalaf; John J McGrath; Jacek Moskalewicz; Sing Lee; Zeina Mneimneh; Fernando Navarro-Mateu; Carmen C Sasu; Kate Scott; Yolanda Torres; Vladimir Poznyak; Somnath Chatterji; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Addiction Date: 2018-12-09 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Jessica E Salvatore; Sara Larsson Lönn; Jan Sundquist; Paul Lichtenstein; Kristina Sundquist; Kenneth S Kendler Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ryan C Shorey; Joanna Elmquist; Michael J Gawrysiak; Catherine Strauss; Ellen Haynes; Scott Anderson; Gregory L Stuart Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Tim Slade; Wai-Tat Chiu; Meyer Glantz; Ronald C Kessler; Luise Lago; Nancy Sampson; Ali Al-Hamzawi; Silvia Florescu; Jacek Moskalewicz; Sam Murphy; Fernando Navarro-Mateu; Yolanda Torres de Galvis; Maria Carmen Viana; Miguel Xavier; Louisa Degenhardt Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Krzysztof Bogusz; Maciej Kopera; Andrzej Jakubczyk; Elisa M Trucco; Katarzyna Kucharska; Anna Walenda; Marcin Wojnar Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 6.526