Fifteen-year follow-up of ICD-10 schizoaffective disorders compared with schizophrenia and affective disorders.

Department of Psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (Impact Factor: 5.55). 02/2004; 109(1):30-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-690X.2004.00208.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The nosological status of schizoaffective disorders is still unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare ICD-10 schizoaffective disorders to schizophrenia and affective disorders with respect to the clinical picture and the long-term outcome.
Two hundred and forty-one first-admitted inpatients from the years 1980-1982 who fulfilled the ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective or affective disorders were included. Patients were examined at the time of first hospitalization and then followed-up after 15 years.
With respect to the clinical picture at the time of first hospitalization ICD-10 schizoaffective disorders were distinguishable from both schizophrenia and affective disorders. However, with respect to the long-term outcome ICD-10 schizoaffective disorders had a prognosis similar to that of affective disorders.
Differing prognosis implies that schizoaffective disorders should be distinguished from schizophrenia and suggests their subcategorization under affective disorders.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Schizoaffective disorder is viewed as a heterogeneous diagnosis among psychotic illnesses. Different diagnostic systems differ in their definition with DSM (-IIIR, -IV, and -V) providing a narrower definition than RDC and ICD-10. It is unclear whether this difference is reflected in patient samples diagnosed according to different diagnostic systems. Exploratory study based on a systematic review of studies of schizoaffective disorder samples diagnosed by either RDC and ICD-10 (group of "broad criteria") or DSM-IIIR and -IV ("narrow criteria"); comparison (by Mann-Whitney-U-tests) of key characteristics, such as age, number of hospitalizations, or scores in psychometric tests, between more broadly and more narrowly defined schizoaffective disorder samples using standard deviations as a measurement of heterogeneity as well as weighted means and percentages. To reduce selection bias only studies including schizoaffective patient samples together with affective disorder and schizophrenia samples were selected. 55 studies were included, 14 employing RDC, 4 ICD-10, 20 DSM-IIIR, and 17 DSM-IV. Thirteen characteristics were compared: patients diagnosed according to broader criteria had fewer previous hospitalizations (2.2 vs. 5.4) and were both less often male (42 vs. 51%) and married (21 vs. 40%). Heterogeneity was similar in both groups but slightly higher in RDC and ICD-10 samples than in DSM-IIIR and -IV-samples: +4% regarding demographic and clinical course data and +13% regarding psychometric tests (pooled SD). Secular trends and different designs may have confounded the results and limit generalizability. Some comparisons were underpowered. Differences in diagnostic criteria are reflected in key characteristics of samples. The association of larger heterogeneity with wider diagnostic criteria supports employing standard deviations as a measurement of heterogeneity.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 12/2013; 156. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2013.12.001 · 3.71 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; 265(2). DOI:10.1007/s00406-014-0521-9 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
    Salud Mental 12/2010; 33(6):507-515. · 0.42 Impact Factor