RESUMO
Amidst broad changes to the somatic disorder diagnoses, DSM-IV pain disorder was absorbed into DSM-5's somatic symptom disorder (SSD) as a specifier. However, clinical research testing of its use for the chronic pain population has been limited and its utility remains inconclusive. Using the exemplar of fibromyalgia, this article evaluates the validity, reliability, clinical utility, and acceptability of the SSD pain specifier. The diagnosis appears to have moderate validity but low specificity for the fibromyalgia population. The pain specifier has neither undergone sufficient field testing nor been evaluated for use by medical providers, with available data suggesting low reliability. Further research is needed to establish clinical utility via assessment of differential treatment outcomes. Concerns about social, legal, and economic consequences of classifying pain patients with a mental health diagnosis are outstanding. The current SSD criteria should be used with caution among the fibromyalgia patient population until its application for chronic pain has been further researched.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The most recent versions of the two main mental disorders classifications-the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-differ substantially in their diagnostic categories related to transgender identity. ICD-11 gender incongruence (GI), in contrast to DSM-5 gender dysphoria (GD), is explicitly not a mental disorder; neither distress nor dysfunction is a required feature. The objective was compared ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic requirements in terms of their sensitivity, specificity, discriminability and ability to predict the use of gender-affirming medical procedures. METHOD: A total of 649 of transgender adults in six countries completed a retrospective structured interview. RESULTS: Using ROC analysis, sensitivity of the diagnostic requirements was equivalent for both systems, but ICD-11 showed greater specificity than DSM-5. Regression analyses indicated that history of hormones and/or surgery was predicted by variables that are an intrinsic aspect of GI/GD more than by distress and dysfunction. IRT analyses showed that the ICD-11 diagnostic formulation was more parsimonious and contained more information about caseness than the DSM-5 model. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the ICD-11 position that GI/GD is not a mental disorder; additional diagnostic requirements of distress and/or dysfunction in DSM-5 reduce the predictive power of the diagnostic model.
ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Las versiones más recientes de las clasificaciones de trastornos mentales CIE-11 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y DSM5 de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana difieren en sus categorías diagnósticas relacionadas con la identidad transgénero. La discordancia de género (DiscG) de la CIE-11, en contraste con la disforia de género (DisfG) del DSM-5, no es considerada un trastorno mental; el distrés y la disfunción no son características requeridas para el diagnóstico. El objetivo fue comparar los requisitos diagnósticos de la CIE-11 y el DSM-5 en términos de sensibilidad, especificidad y capacidad para discriminar casos y predecir el uso de procedimientos médicos de afirmación de género. MÉTODO: 649 adultos transgénero de seis países completaron una entrevista estructurada retrospectiva. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con el análisis ROC, la sensibilidad de ambos sistemas fue equivalente, aunque la CIE-11 mostró mayor especificidad que el DSM-5. Los análisis de regresión indicaron que la historia de uso de hormonas o cirugía se predijo por variables intrínsecas a la DiscG/DisfG y no por el distrés o disfunción. Según los análisis de respuesta al ítem (TRi) la formación CIE-11 resulta más parsimoniosa y contiene mayor información sobre los casos. CONCLUSIONES: Se aporta evidencia a favor de que la DiscG/DisfG no es un trastorno mental; los criterios diagnósticos adicionales de distrés y/o disfunción del DSM-5 reducen su poder predictivo.