Article

Trichotillomania (hair pulling disorder), skin picking disorder, and stereotypic movement disorder: toward DSM‐V

Depression and Anxiety (Impact Factor: 4.29). 05/2010; 27(6):611 - 626. DOI: 10.1002/da.20700
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In DSM-IV-TR, trichotillomania (TTM) is classified as an impulse control disorder (not classified elsewhere), skin picking lacks its own diagnostic category (but might be diagnosed as an impulse control disorder not otherwise specified), and stereotypic movement disorder is classified as a disorder usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence. ICD-10 classifies TTM as a habit and impulse disorder, and includes stereotyped movement disorders in a section on other behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence. This article provides a focused review of nosological issues relevant to DSM-V, given recent empirical findings. This review presents a number of options and preliminary recommendations to be considered for DSM-V: (1) Although TTM fits optimally into a category of body-focused repetitive behavioral disorders, in a nosology comprised of relatively few major categories it fits best within a category of motoric obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorders, (2) available evidence does not support continuing to include (current) diagnostic criteria B and C for TTM in DSM-V, (3) the text for TTM should be updated to describe subtypes and forms of hair pulling, (4) there are persuasive reasons for referring to TTM as “hair pulling disorder (trichotillomania),” (5) diagnostic criteria for skin picking disorder should be included in DSM-V or in DSM-Vs Appendix of Criteria Sets Provided for Further Study, and (6) the diagnostic criteria for stereotypic movement disorder should be clarified and simplified, bringing them in line with those for hair pulling and skin picking disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
301 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bezoars are accumulations of human or plant fiber located in the gastrointestinal tract of both humans and animals. Patients remain asymptomatic for several years, and the symptoms develop as these accumulations increase in size to the point of obstruction or perforation. We report the case of a 21-year-old patient at 10 d postpartum, who presented with acute abdomen associated with sepsis. Given the urgency of the clinical picture, at no point was the presence of a giant bezoar at gastric level suspected, specifically a trichobezoar. The emergency abdominal and pelvic ultrasound revealed only unspecific signs of perforated hollow viscus. Diagnosis was therefore made intraoperatively. A complete gastric trichobezoar was found with gastric perforation and secondary peritonitis. The peritoneal fluid culture revealed Candida glabrata.
    World journal of clinical cases. 12/2014; 2(12):918-23.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to current proposals for ICD-11, stereotyped movement disorder will be classified in the grouping of neurodevelopmental disorders, with a qualifier to indicate whether self-injury is present, similar to the classification of stereotypic movement disorder in DSM-5. At the same time, the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders has proposed a grouping of body-focused repetitive behavior disorders within the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRD) cluster to include trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder. DSM-5 has taken a slightly different approach: trichotillomania and excoriation (skin picking) disorder are included in the OCRD grouping, while body-focused repetitive behavior disorder is listed under other specified forms of OCRD. DSM-5 also includes a separate category of nonsuicidal self-injury in the section on "conditions for further study." There are a number of unresolved nosological questions regarding the relationships among stereotyped movement disorder, body-focused repetitive behavior disorders, and nonsuicidal self-injury. In this article, we attempt to provide preliminary answers to some of these questions as they relate to the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioral disorders.
    Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 01/2014; 36 Suppl 1:65-8. · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Part 1 of this paper discussed several more general aspects of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and offered a detailed, paradigmatic analysis of changes made to the chapter on depressive disorders. This second part focusses on several other disorders, including bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The respective changes and their possible consequences are discussed under consideration of traditional psychiatric classification, particularly from the perspective of European traditions and on the basis of a PubMed search and review papers. The general conclusion is that even seemingly small changes such as the introduction of the mixed feature specifier can have far-reaching consequences. Contrary to the original plans, DSM-5 has not radically changed to become a primarily dimensional diagnostic system but has preserved the categorical system for most disorders. The ambivalence of the respective decision-making becomes apparent from the last minute decision to change the classification of personality disorders from dimensional back to categorical. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed in this context. In DSM-5, only the chapter on addictive disorders has a somewhat dimensional structure. Also in contrast to the original intentions, DSM-5 has not used a more neurobiological approach to disorders by including biological markers to increase the objectivity of psychiatric diagnoses. Even in the most advanced field in terms of biomarkers, the neurocognitive disorders, the primarily symptom-based, descriptive approach has been preserved and the well-known amyloid-related and other biomarkers are not included. This is because, even after so many years of biomarker research, the results are still not considered to be robust enough to use in clinical practice.
    European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 08/2014; · 3.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
166 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014