Two of the most commonly used nosological systems- International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-10 and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV are under revision. This process has generated a lot of interesting debates with regards to future of the current diagnostic categories. In fact, the status of categorical approach in the upcoming versions of ICD and DSM is also being debated. The current article focuses on the debate with regards to the eating disorders. The existing classification of eating disorders has been criticized for its limitations. A host of new diagnostic categories have been recommended for inclusion in the upcoming revisions. Also the structure of the existing categories has also been put under scrutiny.
"Both systems have their proponents and opponents; neither system can claim superiority (Frances & Nardo, 2013; Goyal, Balhara & Khandelwal, 2012; Uher & Rutter, 2012). Their revision implies tackling the lumper/splitter problem described by Charles Darwin (Endersby, 2009; Leventhal, 2012). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The current nosography of eating disorders (ED) has various limitations in terms of validity and accuracy. The changes adopted in the DSM-5 limit some of the current problems, such as excessive prevalence of ED not otherwise specified (EDNOS) and the lack of longitudinal stability, but are unlikely to adequately capture the clinical complexity of ED. Many authors suggest the need for a thorough review of the current nosography to support evidence-based classification. In this paper, we discuss the validity of the current diagnostic categories and their possible reorganization. Furthermore, we review the main empirical models of classification and the diagnostic approach from a personality perspective, with particular attention to research and to the prognostic and therapeutic implications.
Andrea de Bejczy, Elin Löf, Lisa Walther, Joar Guterstam, Anders Hammarberg, Gulber Asanovska, Johan Franck, Anders Isaksson, Bo Söderpalm
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.