scholarly journals Exercise Addiction and Perfectionism: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gizem Çakın ◽  
Ignatius Darma Juwono ◽  
Marc N. Potenza ◽  
Attila Szabo
Keyword(s):  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Situational Factors ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Exercise Addiction ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Background and aims Exercise addiction may be conceptualized as a behavioral addiction in which a person develops an unhealthy obsession with exercise and physical activity. While exercise addiction is not a formally recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or the International Classification of Diseases, it has been studied and connected to both personal and situational factors. Perfectionism is a feature that has been strongly linked to exercise addiction. The objective of this systematic literature review, performed by following the PRISMA protocol, was to examine relationships between exercise addiction and perfectionism while also considering the subdimensions of perfectionism in different groups. Methods Three databases (PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, and SPORTDiscus) were examined. Sixty relevant articles were identified, of which 22 met inclusion criteria. Results The findings substantiate that perfectionism and its dimensions are weakly or moderately related to exercise addiction. This relationship has been observed in adults, adolescents, athletes, and patients with eating disorders. Of the 22 studies examined, only one did not identify an association between perfectionism or its subdomain(s) and exercise addiction. However, in most studies, the common variance between perfectionism and exercise addiction is relatively small, raising questions regarding the clinical relevance of the relationship. Conclusion Perfectionism is related to exercise addiction, but the strength of the relationship varies in different circumstances, which should be examined in future research.

Comparison of Alcohol Use Disorders in DSM and ICD

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-153
Author(s):  
Jessica W. M. Wong ◽  
Friedrich M. Wurst ◽  
Ulrich W. Preuss
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Historical Developments

Abstract. Introduction: With advances in medicine, our understanding of diseases has deepened and diagnostic criteria have evolved. Currently, the most frequently used diagnostic systems are the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) and the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to diagnose alcohol-related disorders. Results: In this narrative review, we follow the historical developments in ICD and DSM with their corresponding milestones reflecting the scientific research and medical considerations of their time. The current diagnostic concepts of DSM-5 and ICD-11 and their development are presented. Lastly, we compare these two diagnostic systems and evaluate their practicability in clinical use.

Angststörungen – von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Timo D. Vloet ◽  
Marcel Romanos
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Icd 10

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Nach 12 Jahren Entwicklung wird die 11. Version der International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) im Januar 2022 in Kraft treten. Methodik: Im Rahmen eines selektiven Übersichtsartikels werden die Veränderungen im Hinblick auf die Klassifikation von Angststörungen von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 zusammenfassend dargestellt. Ergebnis: Die diagnostischen Kriterien der generalisierten Angststörung, Agoraphobie und spezifischen Phobien werden angepasst. Die ICD-11 wird auf Basis einer Lebenszeitachse neu organisiert, sodass die kindesaltersspezifischen Kategorien der ICD-10 aufgelöst werden. Die Trennungsangststörung und der selektive Mutismus werden damit den „regulären“ Angststörungen zugeordnet und können zukünftig auch im Erwachsenenalter diagnostiziert werden. Neu ist ebenso, dass verschiedene Symptomdimensionen der Angst ohne kategoriale Diagnose verschlüsselt werden können. Diskussion: Die Veränderungen im Bereich der Angsterkrankungen umfassen verschiedene Aspekte und sind in der Gesamtschau nicht unerheblich. Positiv zu bewerten ist die Einführung einer Lebenszeitachse und Parallelisierung mit dem Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Schlussfolgerungen: Die entwicklungsbezogene Neuorganisation in der ICD-11 wird auch eine verstärkte längsschnittliche Betrachtung von Angststörungen in der Klinik sowie Forschung zur Folge haben. Damit rückt insbesondere die Präventionsforschung weiter in den Fokus.

Polarised views about bipolar disorder(s): A critique of the 2020 College guidelines for mood disorders

2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110200
Author(s):  
Gordon Parker
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Mood Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Bipolar Ii Disorder ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Bipolar Ii ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Formal Status

The 2020 College guidelines for mood disorders banish bipolar II disorder – despite its formal status in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Classification of Diseases manuals for more than two decades – and argue that there is no need to partition bipolar disorder into separate sub-types. Their single-entity model is seemingly based on opinion rather than any support from referenced scientific studies. The author challenges the Committee’s model of there being only one bipolar disorder and argues that it presents several clinical management risks, particularly of ‘over-treatment’.

ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: Finding a common ground

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 425-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Bach ◽  
Martin Sellbom ◽  
Mathias Skjernov ◽  
Erik Simonsen
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Domain Models

Objective: The five personality disorder trait domains in the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition are comparable in terms of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality and Disinhibition. However, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model includes a separate domain of Anankastia, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model includes an additional domain of Psychoticism. This study examined associations of International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domains, simultaneously, with categorical personality disorders. Method: Psychiatric outpatients ( N = 226) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Interview and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domain scores were obtained using pertinent scoring algorithms for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Associations between categorical personality disorders and trait domains were examined using correlation and multiple regression analyses. Results: Both the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models showed relevant continuity with categorical personality disorders and captured a substantial amount of their information. As expected, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model was superior in capturing obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model was superior in capturing schizotypal personality disorder. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that little information is ‘lost’ in a transition to trait domain models and potentially adds to narrowing the gap between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model. Accordingly, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models may be used to delineate one another as well as features of familiar categorical personality disorder types. A preliminary category-to-domain ‘cross walk’ is provided in the article.

Voyeuristic Disorder

2019 ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
J. Paul Fedoroff
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Sexual Activity ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Sexual Arousal ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases

Abstract: Voyeuristic disorder is defined as a condition in which a person experiences persistent (at least 6 months), recurrent, and intense sexual arousal from observing an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors. The prevalence of true voyeuristic disorder is estimated to be as high as 12% in men and 4% in women. This chapter discusses the Fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Classification of Diseases diagnostic criteria for voyeuristic disorder, in addition to its diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. The recent literature on these topics is reviewed.

Taxonomy, Classification, and Diagnosis of Disruptive Behavior Disorders

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steiner Hans ◽  
Daniels Whitney ◽  
Kelly Michael ◽  
Stadler Christina
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Disruptive Behavior ◽  
Behavior Disorders ◽  
Developmental Psychopathology ◽  
Disruptive Behavior Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases

This chapter traces the development of diagnoses attempting to capture antisocial and aggressive behavior. The chapter provides a careful discussion of the advantages of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and International Classification of Diseases systems and their diagnostic grouping. Tracing the processes by which these diagnoses were created, the hidden and obvious problems in the current taxonomy are laid bare. The model of developmental psychopathology, of which disruptive behavior disorders arguably have been called a model disorder, provides concluding comments, which point to the advantages of another taxonomy that hold the promise of improving the state of the current descriptive systems.

scholarly journals ICD and DSM: neuroplasticity and staging are still missing

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 276-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Pallanti
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Clinical Staging ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
First Editions

The two main diagnostic systems, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), have undergone a number of revisions since their first editions: whereas the fifth edition of the DSM has been published in 2013, the eleventh revision of the ICD is expected by 2018. Although the process of harmonization between the 2 systems is still a debated topic, the forthcoming revision of the ICD is seemingly converging toward the DSM approach in regard to the reclassification of a number of disorders. Nevertheless, the 2 systems still exhibit considerable differences, partly due to their different purposes, development and revision processes, and target audiences. Furthermore, while alternative and innovative classification approaches are emerging with the aim of integrating the latest findings from neuroscience and genomics, both the DSM and ICD still fail to incorporate core concepts such as the clinical staging of psychiatric disorders and “neuroprogression,” as well as an adequate consideration of endophenotypes.

Eating disorders

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 304-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Erzegovesi ◽  
Laura Bellodi
Keyword(s):  
Eating Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Feeding And Eating Disorders ◽  
Not Otherwise Specified ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Icd 10

Twenty years have passed from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and, in the meanwhile, a lot of research data about eating disorders has been published. This article reviews the main modifications to the classification of eating disorders reported in the “Feeding and Eating Disorders” chapter of the DSM-5, and compares them with the ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines. Particularly, we will show that DSM-5 criteria widened the diagnoses of anorexia and bulimia nervosa to less severe forms (so decreasing the frequency of Eating Disorders, Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS) diagnoses), introduced the new category of Binge Eating Disorder, and incorporated several feeding disorders that were first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence. On the whole, the DSM-5 revision should allow the clinician to make more reliable and timely diagnoses for eating disorders.

Current diagnostic criteria

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Augusto Rohde ◽  
Christian Kieling ◽  
Giovanni Abrahão Salum
Keyword(s):  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Research Domain Criteria ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Adhd Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Domain ◽  
Clinical Category

In this chapter we describe the history of ADHD diagnosis and how it is currently conceptualized in two main classificatory manuals: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for the Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). We also outline differences between DSM and ICD manuals and review discussions in the realm of the 11th edition of the ICD, in its journey to increase clinical utility. Lastly, we discuss the research domain criteria and how this initiative might affect ADHD diagnosis in the future. We conclude by offering a perspective that acknowledges both the limitations of our current classificatory systems, but also points out their paramount importance to clinical practice. ADHD, as currently defined by DSM and ICD, is a well validated clinical category and a useful diagnosis for communication among practitioners, researchers, and for selecting treatments and care for patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document