A history of the DSM-5 scientific review committee

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (9) ◽  
pp. 1793-1800 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Kendler

This article describes the history of the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) for DSM-5 and reviews its background, procedures and deliberative processes, and conceptual/philosophical framework. The results of its work and the most important and contentious issues that arose in its efforts are reviewed. The central role of the SRC was to provide external review for all proposals for diagnostic change in DSM-5, evaluate them on their level of empirical support using objectively structured rules of evidence agreed upon in advance and make appropriate recommendations to the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association. While the creation of the SRC necessitated a great deal of additional work on the part of the SRC, the workgroups and the DSM-5 Task Force, the SRC succeeded in increasing the focus on empirical standards for nosologic change and providing a greater degree of consistency and objectivity in the DSM review process. The article concludes with recommendations, based on lessons learned, for similar efforts that might be included in future iterations of our psychiatric nosology.

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 18-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Fawcett

SummaryThe DSM-5 Mood Disorders changes recommended by the Mood Disorders Workgroup have been summarized. Each of these changes have been reviewed for soundness of reasons for the change, reports in the literature supporting the change, and a consideration of possible negative consequences of the change by the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) or the Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC). While a review of all the literature submitted in support of each of these changes is beyond the scope of this article, general reasons for the changes are discussed. These changes range from the addition or deletion of diagnoses, to changes in criteria and the additions of new specifiers and dimensions. A more mood spectrum view of the range of mood disorders is reflected in the mixed specifier added across unipolar and bipolar disorders. An increased attention to suicide risk assessment is reflected in DSM-5 as well as the addition of a severity of anxiety specifier to draw clinical attention to the importance of these factors.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 623-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry P. Selker ◽  
John B. Buse ◽  
Robert M. Califf ◽  
Robert Carter ◽  
Dan M. Cooper ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
John S. McIntyre ◽  
Joel Yager ◽  
Anita Everett ◽  
Cathryn A. Galanter ◽  
Jeffrey M. Lyness ◽  
...  

Abstract Background For DSM – 5, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees established a robust vetting and review process that included two review committees that did not exist in the development of prior DSMs, the Scientific Review Committee (SRC) and the Clinical and Public Health Committee (CPHC). The CPHC was created as a body that could independently review the clinical and public health merits of various proposals that would fall outside of the strictly defined scientific process. Methods This article describes the principles and issues which led to the creation of the CPHC, the composition and vetting of the committee, and the processes developed by the committee – including the use of external reviewers. Results Outcomes of some of the more involved CPHC deliberations, specifically, decisions concerning elements of diagnoses for major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, catatonia, and substance use disorders, are described. The Committee's extensive reviews and its recommendations regarding Personality Disorders are also discussed. Conclusions On the basis of our experiences, the CPHC membership unanimously believes that external review processes to evaluate and respond to Work Group proposals is essential for future DSM efforts. The Committee also recommends that separate SRC and CPHC committees be appointed to assess proposals for scientific merit and for clinical and public health utility and impact.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document