Functional somatic disorders: discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use.

BACKGROUND: Functional somatic symptoms and disorders are common and complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes. They pose major challenges across medical specialties. These disorders are common and have significant impacts on patients' quality of life and healthcare costs. MAIN BODY: We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders. We propose 'functional somatic disorders' (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum - and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification - they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD). CONCLUSION: We propose a new classification, 'functional somatic disorder', which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

Functional gait disorders, clinical phenomenology, and classification.

BACKGROUND: Functional gait disorders (FGDs) are relatively common in patients presenting for evaluation of a functional movement disorder (FMD). The diagnosis and classification of FGDs is complex because patients may have a primary FGD or a FMD interfering with gait. METHODS: We performed a detailed evaluation of clinical information and video recordings of gait in patients diagnosed with FMDs. RESULTS: We studied a total of 153 patients with FMDs, 68% females, with a mean age at onset of 36.4 years. A primary FGD was observed in 39.2% of patients; among these patients, 13 (8.5%) had an isolated FGD (a gait disorder without other FMDs). FMDs presented in 34% of patients with otherwise normal gait. Tremor was the most common FMD appearing during gait, but dystonia was the most common FMD interfering with gait. Patients with FGD had a higher frequency of slow-hesitant gait, astasia-abasia, bouncing, wide-based gait and scissoring compared with patients with FMDs occurring during gait. Bouncing gait with knee buckling was more frequently observed in patients with isolated FGD (P = 0.017). Patients with FGDs had a trend for higher frequency of wheelchair dependency (P = 0.073) than those with FMDs interfering with gait. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal gait may be observed as a primary FGD or in patients with other FMDs appearing during gait; both conditions are common and may cause disability.

What Has Happened to Hysteria?

This article traces the history of the diagnosis of hysteria from the earliest medical formulations in the 17th century to the present, including the presence of this diagnosis in the five iterations of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Several different types of hysteria are discussed, with alternative causal explanations. Research focusing on this disorder is summarized.

The Influence of Trauma on Autobiographical Memory in the Assessment of Somatoform Disorders According to DSM IV Criteria.

Recalling an event impairs an individual's later ability to recall related knowledge. Impairment in this retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) produces a dysfunction in autobiographical memory. This, like somatic symptoms, has been documented in trauma and sexual abuse survivors. To investigate the relationship between past trauma and somatoform disorders, and the role of memory recall dysfunction in this relationship, three sex-matched groups were constituted using DSM IV criteria: Somatoform (SD) (n. 22) other Psychiatric Disorders (PD) (n. 26) and Healthy Subjects (HS) (n. 35). Responses to Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire revised (SLESQ-R); Direct Forgetting paradigm (DF) for autobiographical memory; Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm for false memory; Stanford Scale type A for Post-Hypnotic Amnesia (PHA); Stroop Colour Word test and a digit-span for cognitive assessment; and Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), Somatic Dissociation Questionnaire (SDQ-20), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS 20) for somatic discomfort were compared among groups. SSAS, SDQ-20 and TAS F1 were correlated with SLESQ-R scores; subjects with higher numbers of traumatic events (NSE) showed greater capacity to remember items-to-be-forgotten (DFF) and higher SDQ-20 scores. Although the SD group showed higher NSE, their autobiographical memory scores were no different to those of other DSM-IV groups. The somatic-trauma-autobiographical memory impairment relationship is identified by DSM V but not DSM IV criteria for somatoform disorder. Higher NSE appears to correlate with both the presence of somatic discomfort and impaired autobiographical memory, suggesting autonoetic consciousness dysfunction in subjects with past trauma and current somatic symptom disorders.

Core Outcome Domains for Clinical Trials on Somatic Symptom Disorder, Bodily Distress Disorder, and Functional Somatic Syndromes: European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The harmonization of core outcome domains in clinical trials facilitates comparison and pooling of data, and simplifies the preparation and review of research projects and comparison of risks and benefits of treatments. Therefore, we provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials on the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. METHODS: The European Network on Somatic Symptom Disorders group of more than 20 experts in the field met twice in Hamburg to discuss issues of assessment and intervention research in somatic symptom disorder, bodily distress disorder, and functional somatic syndromes. The consensus meetings identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials evaluating treatments for somatic symptom disorder and associated functional somatic syndromes. RESULTS: The following core domains should be considered when defining ascertainment methods in clinical trials: a) classification of somatic symptom disorder/bodily distress disorder, associated functional somatic syndromes, and comorbid mental disorders (using structured clinical interviews), duration of symptoms, medical morbidity, and prior treatments; b) location, intensity, and interference of somatic symptoms; c) associated psychobehavioral features and biological markers; d) illness consequences (quality of life, disability, health care utilization, health care costs; e) global improvement and treatment satisfaction; and f) unwanted negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed criteria are intended to improve synergies of clinical trials and to facilitate decision making when comparing different treatment approaches. These recommendations should not result in inflexible guidelines, but increase consistency across investigations in this field.

Medium- and long-term prognostic validity of competing classification proposals for the former somatoform disorders.

BACKGROUND: DSM-5 introduced a fundamental revision of the category of somatoform disorders, which resulted in the new somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and related disorders. However, prognostic validity of SSD remains unclear, while other classification proposals, such as bodily distress disorder (BDD) or polysymptomatic distress disorder (PSDD), might be promising alternatives for the new ICD-11. Therefore, the comparison of the different approaches concerning long-term prognosis of disorder-relevant factors is of special interest. METHOD: In a longitudinal design (baseline, 1-year, and 4-year follow-up), the three proposals (SSD, BDD, PSDD) were compared in an age-representative sample of the German general population (N = 321). To this end, the baseline sample was divided into three independent pairs of groups (with/without SSD, with/without BDD, with/without PSDD). It was tested how well each approach differentiated with regard to medium- and long-term healthcare utilization, number of symptoms, and impairment. RESULTS: Criteria for BDD distinguished best with regard to future healthcare utilization resulting in a large-sized effect (f = 0.44) for the difference between persons with and without BDD, while SSD and PSDD revealed only medium-sized effects (f = 0.28 and f = 0.32) between subjects with and without diagnosis. The three proposals distinguished equally well with regard to future subjective impairment (between f = 0.39 and f = 0.41) and the number of reported symptoms (between f = 0.77 and f = 0.83). CONCLUSION: In accordance with our data regarding prognostic validity, the current draft of the WHO group is based on the BDD proposal. However, existing limitations and weaknesses of the present proposal for the ICD-11 are further discussed.

"Medically unexplained" symptoms and symptom disorders in primary care: prognosis-based recognition and classification.

BACKGROUND: Many patients consult their GP because they experience bodily symptoms. In a substantial proportion of cases, the clinical picture does not meet the existing diagnostic criteria for diseases or disorders. This may be because symptoms are recent and evolving or because symptoms are persistent but, either by their character or the negative results of clinical investigation cannot be attributed to disease: so-called "medically unexplained symptoms" (MUS). MUS are inconsistently recognised, diagnosed and managed in primary care. The specialist classification systems for MUS pose several problems in a primary care setting. The systems generally require great certainty about presence or absence of physical disease, they tend to be mind-body dualistic, and they view symptoms from a narrow specialty determined perspective. We need a new classification of MUS in primary care; a classification that better supports clinical decision-making, creates clearer communication and provides scientific underpinning of research to ensure effective interventions. DISCUSSION: We propose a classification of symptoms that places greater emphasis on prognostic factors. Prognosis-based classification aims to categorise the patient's risk of ongoing symptoms, complications, increased healthcare use or disability because of the symptoms. Current evidence suggests several factors which may be used: symptom characteristics such as: number, multi-system pattern, frequency, severity. Other factors are: concurrent mental disorders, psychological features and demographic data. We discuss how these characteristics may be used to classify symptoms into three groups: self-limiting symptoms, recurrent and persistent symptoms, and symptom disorders. The middle group is especially relevant in primary care; as these patients generally have reduced quality of life but often go unrecognised and are at risk of iatrogenic harm. The presented characteristics do not contain immediately obvious cut-points, and the assessment of prognosis depends on a combination of several factors. CONCLUSION: Three criteria (multiple symptoms, multiple systems, multiple times) may support the classification into good, intermediate and poor prognosis when dealing with symptoms in primary care. The proposed new classification specifically targets the patient population in primary care and may provide a rational framework for decision-making in clinical practice and for epidemiologic and clinical research of symptoms.

[The Chinese expert consensus on clinical practice of "medically unexplained symptoms"].

"Medically unexplained symptoms" (MUS) are commonly seen in all clinical specialties. The preliminary investigations in China show a prevalence of MUS in 4.15%-18.2% of clinical patients. Based on international and national guidelines and the most advanced studies, a Chinese expert consensus on clinical practice of MUS is reached through three rounds of discussion seminars by 25 experts from various specialties including psychiatry, internal medicine, surgery, gynecology-obstetrics, otorhinolar-yngology and traditional Chinese medicine. Clinical doctors should be alert of patients whose discomfort complaints cannot be explained by organic conditions after thorough physical examination and necessary laboratory tests. MUS should be recognized as early as possible so as to avoid complicating iatrogenic factors. A full bio-psycho-social evaluation of the patient is the basic structure of understanding MUS patients. In clinical practice, a trustful doctor-patient relationship is the first step of successful treatment. Then after a reasonable clinical evaluation, explain to the patient that it is a harmless functional symptom, communicate with the patient and reach an acceptable therapeutic goal, help the patient understand the symptoms in a psycho-somatic aspect and rebuild confidence of getting back to normal life. Patients with mild symptoms can be treated by doctors in various specialties, from whom the patient seeks help. Patients with severe symptoms need multi-disciplinary care including specific psychotherapy. Pharmaceutical treatment includes symptom alleviating drugs and antidepressants. In clinical care of patients with "MUS" , a full bio-psycho-social evaluation, a good doctor-patient relationship, a treatment plan according to the severity of symptoms, and a multi-disciplinary cooperation should be noted and practiced.

The clinical inadequacy of the DSM-5 classification of somatic symptom and related disorders: an alternative trans-diagnostic model.

The Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) somatic symptom and related disorders chapter has a limited clinical utility. In addition to the problems that the single diagnostic rubrics and the deletion of the diagnosis of hypochondriasis entail, there are 2 major ambiguities: (1) the use of the term "somatic symptoms" reflects an ill-defined concept of somatization and (2) abnormal illness behavior is included in all diagnostic rubrics, but it is never conceptually defined. In the present review of the literature, we will attempt to approach the clinical issue from a different angle, by introducing the trans-diagnostic viewpoint of illness behavior and propose an alternative clinimetric classification system, based on the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research.

Somatic Symptom Disorder.

With the release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed., the diagnostic category previously known as somatoform disorders is now called somatic symptom and related disorders. The revisions were intended to increase their relevance in the primary care setting. The main feature of this disorder is a patient's concern with physical symptoms that he or she attributes to a nonpsychiatric disease. Primary care physicians often treat patients who manifest symptoms for which there are no biologic cause, and patients with somatic symptom disorder may be subjected to unnecessary testing and procedures. As a result, appropriate diagnosis is essential. Screening instruments are useful in determining the presence of somatic symptom disorder. It is important for the primary care physician to schedule regular appointments, establish a strong therapeutic alliance, acknowledge and legitimize the patient's symptoms, and limit diagnostic testing or referrals to subspecialists. Proven treatments include cognitive behavior therapy, mindfulness-based therapy, and pharmacotherapy. The use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants has been effective in alleviating symptoms. Referral to a mental health professional may be necessary when treatment by the primary care physician is ineffective.

[DSM-5: What is new and what is relevant to forensic psychiatric assessment?]. / DSM 5: Was ist neu und was ist für die Begutachtung relevant?

DSM-5 lists a number of new diagnostic categories and also major changes in diagnoses that have previously been in use. The diagnostic sections of the DSM-5 and certain fundamental changes are presented. Some of the implications with respect to expert opinions are discussed. Certain aspects of the DSM-5 section on somatic symptom disorder will be discussed in more detail, since complaints of physical symptoms without an adequate medical explanation are very frequently encountered in the general population.

[Differential diagnostic considerations using ICD-10 in chronic back pain with special regard to persistent somatoform pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (ICD-10 F45.41)]. / Differenzialdiagnostische Überlegungen zum ICD-10 bei chronischen Rückenschmerzen unter besonderer Berücksich- tigung der chronischen Schmerzstörung mit somatischen und psychischen Faktoren (ICD-10 F45.41).

It is often difficult to pass an expert opinion in cases of chronic back pain. This article analyses the differential diagnostic considerations related to coding various causes in line with ICD-10. It emphasises the I importance of making a careful distinction between orthopoedic and psychiatric conditions and disorders. Simultaneous coding of orthopoedic and psychiatric illnesses and disorders based on a distinct cluster of symptoms necessitates an interdisciplinary approach that consistently applies the ICD-10 definitions of mental an behavioural disorders in order to clearly identify the main reason for a functional impairment in the insurance and sociomedical context. Persistant somatoform pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (ICD-10 F45.41) should be regarded as related to the underlying disease and be used primarily as an additional and descriptive diagnosis.

The Clinical Utility of the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research: A Review of Studies.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) are a set of 12 psychosomatic syndromes and are provided with a reliable diagnostic structured interview. The DCPR have been proposed 20 years ago as an integrative assessment strategy that supplements the traditional psychiatric nosography for identifying patients within a given illness population whose psychosocial factors have clinical significance. This paper reviews their clinical utility, conceived as the degree and the amount of influence that the instrument has on multiple decisions and outcomes in clinical practice. METHODS: Published reports which involved the use of the DCPR were identified by searching electronic databases. Studies which best displayed the clinical utility of the DCPR system were then selected and reviewed. RESULTS: The DCPR system showed its clinical utility regarding the following clinical issues: (1) subtyping medical patients, (2) identifying subthreshold or undetected syndromes, (3) evaluating the burden of somatic syndromes, and (4) predicting treatment outcomes and identifying risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The DCPR may help clinicians during the assessment process to recognize clinical conditions underlying symptom presentation, with important therapeutic and prognostic implications.

New concepts for ICD-classification of common mental disorders from the perspective of general medical practice.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at obtaining views of Austrian general practitioners (GPs) regarding the appropriateness of the proposed new ICD11-PHC classifications 'anxious depression', 'bodily stress syndrome' and 'health anxiety'and on the usefulness of their diagnostic criteria in the general medical setting. METHODS: This qualitative study used a focus group method for data collection. RESULTS: There was general support for the additional new concept of anxious depression. When asked to choose between diagnostic criteria of bodily stress syndrome, that listed somatic symptoms in each of four bodily systems, or to use a simpler definition, most participants favoured the simpler approach. Health anxiety was thought to be a concept that overlapped with bodily stress syndrome, but several participants saw advantages in nevertheless distinguishing the two concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The three new concepts were considered as appropriate and useful for the general medical setting, with a general view supporting the simpler definition of bodily stress syndrome.

[Medical certification of chronic fatigue syndrome]. / Begutachtung des chronischen Erschöpfungssyndroms.

Chronic fatigue or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is not a new disease, yet in recent years it has become increasingly important as an evaluation problem. It coincides with the well-known clinical picture of neurasthenia, shows extensive overlap with symptoms of depression and, finally, to the current concept of "burnout". Regarding the etiology there is fierce controversy between the representatives of a somatic and a psychological etiology. As reviewers you will be guided by the assessment criteria for somatoform disorders, especially because objectified findings are lacking. CFS can be independently encoded as neurological diagnosis G 93.3 according to ICD-10, although never objectified neurological deficits were detected, as well as neurasthenia F 48.0 or accompanying physical symptoms as somatization disorder F 45.0.

Is the DSM-5 chapter on somatic symptom disorder any better than DSM-IV somatoform disorder?

DSM-5 is a modest improvement on DSM-IV, notably in abandoning the distinction between medically explained and unexplained symptoms, but problems remain. The chapter text is incoherent, contradicts the classification and will be clinically unhelpful. ICD-11 should attempt a more logical and consistent revision.

How to use the new DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder diagnosis in research and practice: a critical evaluation and a proposal for modifications.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) changed the term "somatoform disorders" to "somatic symptom and related disorders" and further modified diagnostic labels and criteria. We review evidence for the validity of the new criteria, specifically of somatic symptom disorder (SSD), and present a critical discussion of unsolved and new problems. We also provide an update of mechanisms and interventions that have been empirically evaluated in somatoform disorders. For many mechanisms, it is unclear whether their role can be easily transposed to SSD. Therefore more research is needed on the similarities and differences between medically unexplained and medically explained conditions. To overcome the obvious shortcomings of the current classification, we offer a modification of this DSM-5 section as well as a crossover system to apply these criteria for somatic symptom and related disorders. This proposal allows working with DSM-5 but also continuing successful lines of research with concepts such as hypochondriasis/illness anxiety, chronic pain, and medically unexplained versus medically explained syndromes.

Towards a clinically useful diagnosis for mild-to-moderate conditions of medically unexplained symptoms in general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms that cannot be attributed to any known conventionally defined disease are highly prevalent in general practice. Yet, only severe cases are captured by the current diagnostic classifications of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). This study explores the clinical usefulness of a proposed new diagnostic category for mild-to-moderate conditions of MUS labelled 'multiple symptoms'. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used. For two weeks, 20 general practitioners (GPs) classified symptoms presented in consecutive consultations according to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) supplemented with the new diagnostic category 'multiple symptoms'. The GPs' experiences were subsequently explored by focus group interviews. Interview data were analysed according to ethnographic principles. RESULTS: In 33% of patients, GPs classified symptoms as medically unexplained, but applied the category of 'multiple symptoms' only in 2.8%. The category was described as a useful tool for promoting communication and creating better awareness of patients with MUS; as such, the category was perceived to reduce the risk of unnecessary tests and referrals of these patients. Three main themes were found to affect the clinical usefulness of the diagnostic category of 'multiple symptoms': 1) lack of consensus on categorisation practices, 2) high complexity of patient cases and 3) relational continuity (i.e. continuity in the doctor-patient relationship over time). The first two were seen as barriers to usefulness, the latter as a prerequisite for application. The GPs' diagnostic classifications were found to be informed by the GPs' subjective pre-formed concepts of patients with MUS, which reflected more severe conditions than actually intended by the new category of 'multiple symptoms'. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated possible clinical benefits of the category of 'multiple symptoms', such as GPs' increased awareness and informational continuity in partnership practices. The use of the category was challenged by the GPs' conceptual understanding of MUS and was applied only to a minority of patients. The study demonstrates a need for addressing these issues if sub-threshold categories for MUS are to be applied in routine care. The category of 'multiple symptoms' may profitably be used in the future as a risk indicator rather than a diagnostic category.

Somatoform disorders and rheumatic diseases: from DSM-IV to DSM-V.

Medically unexplained symptoms are considered 'somatoform disorders' in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The introduction of this nosographic category has been helpful in drawing attention to a previously neglected area, but has not been successful in promoting an understanding of the disorders' biological basis and treatment implications, probably because of a series of diagnostic shortcomings. The newly proposed DSM-V diagnostic criteria try to overcome the limitations of the DSM-IV definition, which was organised centrally around the concept of medically unexplained symptoms, by emphasising the extent to which a patient's thoughts, feelings and behaviours concerning their somatic symptoms are disproportionate or excessive. This change is supported by a growing body of evidence showing that psychological and behavioural features play a major role in causing patient disability and maintaining high level of health care use. Pain disorders is the sub-category of DSM-IV somatoform disorders that most closely resembles fibromyalgia. Regardless of the diagnostic changes recently brought about by DSM-V, neuroimaging studies have identified important components of the mental processes associated with a DSM- IV diagnosis of pain disorder.

[DSM-5: from 'somatoform disorders' to 'somatic symptom and related disorders']. / DSM-5: van somatoforme stoornissen naar 'somatic symptom and related disorders'

BACKGROUND: The DSM-IV somatoform disorder category was controversial and has undergone major changes in DSM-5. AIM: To provide a critical description of DSM-5 somatic symptoms and related disorders (SSD). METHOD: To review the new classification system for somatic symptom and related disorders (SSD) as set out in DSM-5 RESULTS: Whereas the symptoms of somatoform disorder were always considered to be medically unexplained, in DSM-5 the symptoms of somatic symptom disorder can now sometimes be explained by a medical condition. The criterion is that the individual has a maladaptive reaction to a somatic symptom. In DSM-5 the terms somatisation disorder, pain disorder and undifferentiated somatoform disorder have been discarded, whereas factitious disorder as well as psychological factors affecting other medical conditions have been added to somatic symptom disorder and other disorders. Conversion disorder remains as it was in DSM-IV. Hypochondriasis has been renamed 'illness anxiety disorder'. CONCLUSION: The new description of somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 represents a big step forwards, because the decision has been made to use, for classification, a positive criterion, namely maladaptive reaction to a somatic symptom, instead of the earlier negative criterion, namely that the symptoms should be medically unexplained. Before attaching the ssd label to an illness, the clinician will have to weigh up the clinical consequences of this psychiatric diagnosis.