Ten years of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorders: A scoping review on empirical evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 133 ◽  
pp. 110072
Author(s):  
B. Löwe ◽  
J. Levenson ◽  
M. Depping ◽  
P. Hüsing ◽  
S. Kohlmann ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Bernd Löwe ◽  
James Levenson ◽  
Miriam Depping ◽  
Paul Hüsing ◽  
Sebastian Kohlmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In 2013, the diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder (SSD) was introduced into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This review aims to comprehensively synthesize contemporary evidence related to SSD. Methods A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. The main inclusion criteria were SSD and publication in the English language between 01/2009 and 05/2020. Systematic search terms also included subheadings for the DSM-5 text sections; i.e., diagnostic features, prevalence, development and course, risk and prognostic factors, culture, gender, suicide risk, functional consequences, differential diagnosis, and comorbidity. Results Eight hundred and eighty-two articles were identified, of which 59 full texts were included for analysis. Empirical evidence supports the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of SSD diagnostic criteria, but the further specification of the psychological SSD B-criteria criteria seems necessary. General population studies using self-report questionnaires reported mean frequencies for SSD of 12.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5–13.3%], while prevalence studies based on criterion standard interviews are lacking. SSD was associated with increased functional impairment, decreased quality of life, and high comorbidity with anxiety and depressive disorders. Relevant research gaps remain regarding developmental aspects, risk and prognostic factors, suicide risk as well as culture- and gender-associated issues. Conclusions Strengths of the SSD diagnosis are its good reliability, validity, and clinical utility, which substantially improved on its predecessors. SSD characterizes a specific patient population that is significantly impaired both physically and psychologically. However, substantial research gaps exist, e.g., regarding SSD prevalence assessed with criterion standard diagnostic interviews.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nana Xiong ◽  
Yaoyin Zhang ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Rainer Leonhart ◽  
Kurt Fritzsche ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 30-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Dimsdale

SummaryFollowing a brief historic discourse, problems with the current use and concepts the of somatoform disorders are described. The rationale for substituting the term „somatoform“ with „somatic symptom“ in DSM5 is explained and the new classification criteria for the group of “somatic symptom related disorders” are described, which include severity ratings. A special aspect is that “Illness anxiety disorder” is introduced as a new diagnostic entity in DSM-5.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yinan Jiang ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Kurt Fritzsche ◽  
Anne Christin Toussaint ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-344
Author(s):  
Tao Li ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Kurt Fritzsche ◽  
Anne Christin Toussaint ◽  
Yinan Jiang ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (03) ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
M. Zaudig

ZusammenfassungDer vorliegende Artikel beschreibt die aktuellen diagnostischen Entwicklungen im Bereich der Somatoformen Störung unter Zugrundelegung der aktuellen S3-Leitlinien für „Nichtspezifische funktionelle und somatoforme Körperbeschwerden“ und der historischen Entwicklung der Somatoformen Störungen (einschließlich der Hypochondrie). Neben einem Vergleich von ICD-10 mit DSM-IV-TR und DSM-5 werden die neuen Kriterien für Somatic Symptom Disorder und Illness Anxiety Disorder (vormals Hypochondrie) nach DSM-5 vorgestellt und diskutiert.


2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-181
Author(s):  
Stefanie Caroline Linden

Introduction: The psychological contribution to functional neurological and somatic symptom disorders is a major topic in current medical debate. Objective: For an understanding of the processes leading to functional somatic symptoms, it is paramount to explore their relationship with stress and life events and to elucidate the contribution of cultural factors. Methods: A total of 937 case records of civilian and military patients with functional somatic disorders treated in London during World War 1 were analysed. Group differences in symptom profiles and contemporaneous diagnoses were tested with χ2 tests. Results: Paralyses and speech disturbances were significantly more common in soldiers (43.3 and 17.2% of cases) than in civilian male (28.1 and 6.5%) and female patients (32.4 and 7.5%), whereas female patients had the highest rates of pain (48.6%) and somatic symptoms (67%). Triggers were identified in around two-thirds of cases and included accidents, physical illness, and work stress, in addition to the combat experience of the soldier patients. The nature of the trigger influenced symptom expression, with acute (combat and noncombat) events being particularly prone to trigger loss of motor function. Symptom profiles showed a great deal of multi-morbidity and overlap, although some symptom clusters were more (motor and speech disturbance) or less common (pain and loss of energy) in soldiers than civilians. Triggering life events in civilians were similar to those reported by patients with somatic symptom disorders today, with an important role of physical factors. Patterns of multi-morbidity and symptom clusters also resembled those of modern cohorts. Conclusions: Analysis of historical records, illness trajectories, and treatments can enhance the understanding of the presentation, mechanisms, and course of functional neurological and related disorders and their consistency over time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document