AuthorAmerican Psychiatric Association
CountryUnited States
SeriesDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
SubjectClassification and diagnosis of mental disorders
PublishedMay 18, 2013
Media typePrint (hardcover, softcover); e-book
LC ClassRC455.2.C4
Preceded byDSM-IV-TR 
Followed byDSM-5-TR 
TextDSM-5 online

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), is the 2013 update to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the taxonomic and diagnostic tool published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 2022, a revised version (DSM-5-TR) was published.[1] In the United States, the DSM serves as the principal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.[citation needed] Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications, so the appearance of a new version has practical importance. However, not all providers rely on the DSM-5 for planning treatment as the ICD's mental disorder diagnoses are used around the world[2] and scientific studies often measure changes in symptom scale scores rather than changes in DSM-5 criteria to determine the real-world effects of mental health interventions.[3][4][5][6] The DSM-5 is the only DSM to use an Arabic numeral instead of a Roman numeral in its title, as well as the only living document version of a DSM.[7]

The DSM-5 is not a major revision of the DSM-IV-TR, and the two have significant differences. Changes in the DSM-5 include the re-conceptualization of Asperger syndrome from a distinct disorder to an autism spectrum disorder; the elimination of subtypes of schizophrenia; the deletion of the "bereavement exclusion" for depressive disorders; the renaming and reconceptualization of gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria; the inclusion of binge eating disorder as a discrete eating disorder; the renaming and reconceptualization of paraphilias, now called paraphilic disorders; the removal of the five-axis system; and the splitting of disorders not otherwise specified into other specified disorders and unspecified disorders.

Many authorities criticized the fifth edition both before and after it was published. Critics assert, for example, that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; that inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; that several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and that the pharmaceutical industry may have unduly influenced the manual's content, given the industry association of many DSM-5 workgroup participants.[8] The APA itself has published that the inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders, including major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.[9]

Changes from DSM-IV

The DSM-5 is divided into three sections, using Roman numerals to designate each section.

Section I

Section I describes DSM-5 chapter organization, its change from the multiaxial system, and Section III's dimensional assessments.[10] The DSM-5 dissolved the chapter that includes "disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence" opting to list them in other chapters.[10] A note under Anxiety Disorders says that the "sequential order" of at least some DSM-5 chapters has significance that reflects the relationships between diagnoses.[10]

The introductory section describes the process of DSM revision, including field trials, public and professional review, and expert review. It states its goal is to harmonize with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) systems and share organizational structures as much as is feasible. Concern about the categorical system of diagnosis is expressed, but the conclusion is the reality that alternative definitions for most disorders are scientifically premature.

DSM-5 replaces the Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) categories with two options: other specified disorder and unspecified disorder to increase the utility to the clinician. The first allows the clinician to specify the reason that the criteria for a specific disorder are not met; the second allows the clinician the option to forgo specification.

DSM-5 has discarded the multiaxial system of diagnosis (formerly Axis I, Axis II, Axis III), listing all disorders in Section II. It has replaced Axis IV with significant psychosocial and contextual features and dropped Axis V (Global Assessment of Functioning, known as GAF). The World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule is added to Section III (Emerging measures and models) under Assessment Measures, as a suggested, but not required, method to assess functioning.[11]

Section II: diagnostic criteria and codes

Neurodevelopmental disorders

Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders

Bipolar and related disorders

Depressive disorders

Anxiety disorders

Obsessive-compulsive and related disorders

Trauma- and stressor-related disorders

Dissociative disorders

Somatic symptom and related disorders

Feeding and eating disorders

Elimination disorders

Sleep–wake disorders

Sexual dysfunctions

Gender dysphoria

Further information: Gender dysphoria

Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders

Some of these disorders were formerly part of the chapter on early diagnosis, oppositional defiant disorder; conduct disorder; and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified became other specified and unspecified disruptive disorder, impulse-control disorder, and conduct disorders.[10] Intermittent explosive disorder, pyromania, and kleptomania moved to this chapter from the DSM-IV chapter "Impulse-Control Disorders Not Otherwise Specified".[10]

Substance-related and addictive disorders

There are no more polysubstance diagnoses in DSM-5; the substance(s) must be specified.[34]

Neurocognitive disorders

Personality disorders

Paraphilic disorders

Section III: emerging measures and models

It includes dimensional measures for the assessment of symptoms, criteria for the cultural formulation of disorders and an alternative proposal for the conceptualization of personality disorders, as well as a description of the currently studied clinical conditions. It presents selected tools and research techniques focused on diagnosis, taking into account the sociocultural context, and also presents a hybrid-dimensional-categorical model of personality disorders. Specific personalities (antisocial, borderline, avoidant, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, schizotypal) and non-specific disorders were distinguished.

Conditions for further study

These conditions and criteria are set forth to encourage future research and are not meant for clinical use.


In 1999, a DSM-5 Research Planning Conference, sponsored jointly by APA and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), was held to set the research priorities. Research Planning Work Groups produced "white papers" on the research needed to inform and shape the DSM-5[41] and the resulting work and recommendations were reported in an APA monograph[42] and peer-reviewed literature.[43] There were six workgroups, each focusing on a broad topic: Nomenclature, Neuroscience and Genetics, Developmental Issues and Diagnosis, Personality and Relational Disorders, Mental Disorders and Disability, and Cross-Cultural Issues. Three additional white papers were also due by 2004 concerning gender issues, diagnostic issues in the geriatric population, and mental disorders in infants and young children.[44] The white papers have been followed by a series of conferences to produce recommendations relating to specific disorders and issues, with attendance limited to 25 invited researchers.[44]

On July 23, 2007, the APA announced the task force that would oversee the development of DSM-5. The DSM-5 Task Force consisted of 27 members, including a chair and vice chair, who collectively represent research scientists from psychiatry and other disciplines, clinical care providers, and consumer and family advocates. Scientists working on the revision of the DSM had a broad range of experience and interests. The APA Board of Trustees required that all task force nominees disclose any competing interests or potentially conflicting relationships with entities that have an interest in psychiatric diagnoses and treatments as a precondition to appointment to the task force. The APA made all task force members' disclosures available during the announcement of the task force. Several individuals were ruled ineligible for task force appointments due to their competing interests.[45]

The DSM-5 field trials included test-retest reliability which involved different clinicians doing independent evaluations of the same patient—a common approach to the study of diagnostic reliability.[46]

About 68% of DSM-5 task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards.[47]

Revisions and updates

Beginning with the fifth edition, it is intended that diagnostic guideline revisions will be added incrementally.[48] The DSM-5 is identified with Arabic rather than Roman numerals, marking a change in how future updates will be created. Incremental updates will be identified with decimals (DSM-5.1, DSM-5.2, etc.), until a new edition is written.[49] The change reflects the intent of the APA to respond more quickly when a preponderance of research supports a specific change in the manual. The research base of mental disorders is evolving at different rates for different disorders.[48]

DSM-5-TR cover

A revision of DSM-5, titled DSM-5-TR, was published in March 2022, updating diagnostic criteria and ICD-10-CM codes.[50] The diagnostic criteria for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder were changed,[51][52] along with adding entries for prolonged grief disorder, unspecified mood disorder and stimulant-induced mild neurocognitive disorder.[53][54] Prolonged grief disorder, which had been present in the ICD-11, had criteria agreed upon by consensus in a one day in-person workshop sponsored by the APA.[51] A 2022 study found that higher rates of diagnosis of prolonged grief disorder in the ICD-11 could be explained by the DSM-5-TR criteria requiring symptoms persist for 12 months, and the ICD-11 requiring only 6 months.[55]

Three review groups for sex and gender, culture and suicide, along with an "ethnoracial equity and inclusion work group" were involved in the creation of the DSM-5-TR which led to additional sections for each mental disorder discussing sex and gender, racial and cultural variations, and adding diagnostic codes for specifying levels of suicidality and nonsuicidal self-injury for mental disorders.[53][51]

Other changed mental disorders included:[56]


Medical Education

The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) which is responsible for creating and publishing board exams for medical students around the United States conforms to the use of DSM-5 criteria.[57]



Robert Spitzer, the head of the DSM-III task force, publicly criticized the APA for mandating that DSM-5 task force members sign a nondisclosure agreement, effectively conducting the whole process in secret: "When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers. Transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility, and, in time, you're going to have people complaining all over the place that they didn't have the opportunity to challenge anything."[58] Allen Frances, chair of the DSM-IV task force, expressed a similar concern.[59]

David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force, and Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH, vice chair of the task force, whose industry ties are disclosed with those of the task force,[60] countered that "collaborative relationships among government, academia, and industry are vital to the current and future development of pharmacological treatments for mental disorders". They asserted that the development of DSM-5 is the "most inclusive and transparent developmental process in the 60-year history of DSM". The developments to this new version can be viewed on the APA website.[61] During periods of public comment, members of the public could sign up at the DSM-5 website[62] and provide feedback on the various proposed changes.[63]

In June 2009, Allen Frances issued strongly worded criticisms of the processes leading to DSM-5 and the risk of "serious, subtle, [...] ubiquitous" and "dangerous" unintended consequences such as new "false 'epidemics'". He writes that "the work on DSM-V has displayed the most unhappy combination of soaring ambition and weak methodology" and is concerned about the task force's "inexplicably closed and secretive process".[64] His and Spitzer's concerns about the contract that the APA drew up for consultants to sign, agreeing not to discuss drafts of the fifth edition beyond the task force and committees, have also been aired and debated.[65]

In 2011, psychologist Brent Robbins co-authored a national letter for the Society for Humanistic Psychology that brought thousands into the public debate about the DSM. Approximately 13,000 individuals and mental health professionals signed a petition in support of the letter. Thirteen other American Psychological Association divisions endorsed the petition.[66] In a November 2011 article about the debate in the San Francisco Chronicle, Robbins notes that under the new guidelines, certain responses to grief could be labeled as pathological disorders, instead of being recognized as being normal human experiences.[67] In 2012, a footnote was added to the draft text which explains the distinction between grief and depression.[68]

The DSM-5 has been criticized for purportedly saying nothing about the biological underpinnings of mental disorders.[69] A book-long appraisal of the DSM-5, with contributions from philosophers, historians and anthropologists, was published in 2015.[70]

A 2015 essay from an Australian university criticized the DSM-5 for having poor cultural diversity, stating that recent work done in cognitive sciences and cognitive anthropology is still only accepting western psychology as the norm.[71]

DSM-5 includes a section on how to conduct a "cultural formulation interview", which gives information about how a person's cultural identity may be affecting expression of signs and symptoms. The goal is to make more reliable and valid diagnoses for disorders subject to significant cultural variation.[72]

Gender and Sexual Identity Disorders work group

The appointment, in May 2008, of two of the taskforce members, Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard, led to an internet petition to remove them.[73] According to MSNBC, "The petition accuses Zucker of having engaged in 'junk science' and promoting 'hurtful theories' during his career, especially advocating the idea that children who are unambiguously male or female anatomically, but seem confused about their gender identity, can be treated by encouraging gender expression in line with their anatomy."[74] According to The Gay City News:

Dr. Ray Blanchard, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, is deemed offensive for his theories that some types of transsexuality are paraphilias, or sexual urges. In this model, transsexuality is not an essential aspect of the individual, but a misdirected sexual impulse.[75]

The National LGBTQ Task Force issued a statement questioning the APA's decision to appoint Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard to the working group for Gender and Sexual Identity Disorders, stating that, "Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard are clearly out of step with the occurring shift in how doctors and other health professionals think about transgender people and gender variance."[76]

Blanchard responded, "Naturally, it's very disappointing to me there seems to be so much misinformation about me on the Internet. [They didn't distort] my views, they completely reversed my views."[75] Zucker "rejects the junk-science charge, saying there 'has to be an empirical basis to modify anything' in the DSM. As for hurting people, 'in my own career, my primary motivation in working with children, adolescents and families is to help them with the distress and suffering they are experiencing, whatever the reasons they are having these struggles. I want to help people feel better about themselves, not hurt them.'"[74]

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Perverse Dependencies

The financial association of DSM-5 panel members with industry continues to be a concern for financial conflict of interest.[77] Of the DSM-5 task force members, 69% report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, an increase from the 57% of DSM-IV task force members.[77] A study of the DSM-5-TR found that 60% of the American physicians contributing to the revised edition received payments from industry.[78]

Although the APA has since instituted a disclosure policy for DSM-5 task force members, many still believe the association has not gone far enough in its efforts to be transparent and to protect against industry influence.[79] In a 2009 Point/Counterpoint article, Lisa Cosgrove, PhD and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD noted that "the fact that 70% of the task force members have reported direct industry ties—an increase of almost 14% over the percentage of DSM-IV task force members who had industry ties—shows that disclosure policies alone, especially those that rely on an honor system, are not enough and that more specific safeguards are needed".[80]

The role of the DSM-5 in protecting the interests of wealthy and politically powerful owners of the means of production in the United States has been criticized as well.[81] Placing the blame for predictable and common psychological distress caused by the deleterious effects of economic inequality in the United States on individuals by attributing it to mental pathology has been criticized as hindering change of the root causes of the distress.[81] The DSM-5's expansive criteria that attribute mental pathology to people with distress or impairment from a wide-ranging constellation of experiences has been criticized for pathologizing an unhelpful number of people that a psychiatric diagnosis is not beneficial for.[82]

Borderline personality disorder controversy

In 2003, the Treatment and Research Advancements National Association for Personality Disorders (TARA-APD) campaigned to change the name and designation of borderline personality disorder in DSM-5.[83] The paper How Advocacy is Bringing BPD into the Light[84] reported that "the name BPD is confusing, imparts no relevant or descriptive information, and reinforces existing stigma." Instead, it proposed the name "emotional regulation disorder" or "emotional dysregulation disorder." There was also discussion about changing borderline personality disorder, an Axis II diagnosis (personality disorders and mental retardation), to an Axis I diagnosis (clinical disorders).[85]

The TARA-APD recommendations do not appear to have affected the American Psychiatric Association, the publisher of the DSM. As noted above, the DSM-5 does not employ a multi-axial diagnostic scheme, therefore the distinction between Axis I and II disorders no longer exists in the DSM nosology. The name, the diagnostic criteria for, and description of, borderline personality disorder remain largely unchanged from DSM-IV-TR.[86]

British Psychological Society response

The British Psychological Society stated in its June 2011 response to DSM-5 draft versions, that it had "more concerns than plaudits."[87] It criticized proposed diagnoses as "clearly based largely on social norms, with 'symptoms' that all rely on subjective judgements... not value-free, but rather reflect[ing] current normative social expectations," noting doubts over the reliability, validity, and value of existing criteria, that personality disorders were not normed on the general population, and that "not otherwise specified" categories covered a "huge" 30% of all personality disorders.

It also expressed a major concern that "clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences... which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation."

The Society suggested as its primary specific recommendation, a change from using "diagnostic frameworks" to a description based on an individual's specific experienced problems, and that mental disorders are better explored as part of a spectrum shared with normality:

[We recommend] a revision of the way mental distress is thought about, starting with recognition of the overwhelming evidence that it is on a spectrum with 'normal' experience, and that psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma are the most strongly-evidenced causal factors. Rather than applying preordained diagnostic categories to clinical populations, we believe that any classification system should begin from the bottom up – starting with specific experiences, problems or 'symptoms' or 'complaints'... We would like to see the base unit of measurement as specific problems (e.g. hearing voices, feelings of anxiety etc.)? These would be more helpful too in terms of epidemiology.

While some people find a name or a diagnostic label helpful, our contention is that this helpfulness results from a knowledge that their problems are recognised (in both senses of the word) understood, validated, explained (and explicable) and have some relief. Clients often, unfortunately, find that diagnosis offers only a spurious promise of such benefits. Since – for example – two people with a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia' or 'personality disorder' may possess no two symptoms in common, it is difficult to see what communicative benefit is served by using these diagnoses. We believe that a description of a person's real problems would suffice. Moncrieff and others have shown that diagnostic labels are less useful than a description of a person's problems for predicting treatment response, so again diagnoses seem positively unhelpful compared to the alternatives.

— British Psychological Society, June 2011 response

Many of the same criticisms also led to the development of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, an alternative, dimensional framework for classifying mental disorders.

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institute of Mental Health director Thomas R. Insel, MD,[88] wrote in an April 29, 2013 blog post about the DSM-5:[89]

The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a "Bible" for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been "reliability" – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better.

Insel also discussed an NIMH effort to develop a new classification system, Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), currently for research purposes only.[90] Insel's post sparked a flurry of reaction, some of which might be termed sensationalistic, with headlines such as "Goodbye to the DSM-V",[91] "Federal institute for mental health abandons controversial 'bible' of psychiatry",[92] "National Institute of Mental Health abandoning the DSM",[93] and "Psychiatry divided as mental health 'bible' denounced".[94] Other responses provided a more nuanced analysis of the NIMH Director's post.[95]

In May 2013, Insel, on behalf of NIMH, issued a joint statement with Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association,[96] that emphasized that DSM-5 "... represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5." Insel and Lieberman say that DSM-5 and RDoC "represent complementary, not competing, frameworks" for characterizing diseases and disorders.[96] However, epistemologists of psychiatry tend to see the RDoC project as a putative revolutionary system that in the long run will try to replace the DSM, its expected early effect being a liberalization of the research criteria, with an increasing number of research centers adopting the RDoC definitions.[97]

See also


  1. ^ American Psychiatric Association, ed. (2022). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing. ISBN 978-0-89042-575-6.
  2. ^ First M, Rebello T, Keeley J, Bhargava R, Dai Y, Kulygina M, Matsumoto C, Robles R, Stona A, Reed G (June 2018). "Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey". World Psychiatry. 17 (2): 187–195. doi:10.1002/wps.20525. PMC 5980454. PMID 29856559.
  3. ^ Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson LZ, Ogawa Y, Leucht S, Ruhe HG, Turner EH, Higgins JP, Egger M, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Imai H, Shinohara K, Tajika A, Ioannidis JP, Geddes JR (April 7, 2018). "Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis". Lancet. 391 (10128): 1357–1366. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7. PMC 5889788. PMID 29477251.
  4. ^ Bandelow B, Reitt M, Röver C, Michaelis S, Görlich Y, Wedekind D (July 2015). "Efficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis". International Clinical Psychopharmacology. 30 (4): 183–192. doi:10.1097/YIC.0000000000000078. ISSN 0268-1315. PMID 25932596. S2CID 24088074.
  5. ^ Schneider-Thoma J, Chalkou K, Dörries C, Bighelli I, Ceraso A, Huhn M, Siafis S, Davis JM, Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Leucht S (February 26, 2022). "Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis". Lancet. 399 (10327): 824–836. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01997-8. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 35219395. S2CID 247087411.
  6. ^ Gartlehner G, Crotty K, Kennedy S, Edlund MJ, Ali R, Siddiqui M, Fortman R, Wines R, Persad E, Viswanathan M (October 2021). "Pharmacological Treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". CNS Drugs. 35 (10): 1053–1067. doi:10.1007/s40263-021-00855-4. ISSN 1172-7047. PMC 8478737. PMID 34495494.
  7. ^ Wakefield JC (May 22, 2013). "DSM-5: An Overview of Changes and Controversies". Clinical Social Work Journal. 41 (2): 139–154. doi:10.1007/s10615-013-0445-2. ISSN 0091-1674. S2CID 144603715.
  8. ^ Welch S, Klassen C, Borisova O, Clothier H (2013). "The DSM-5 controversies: How should psychologists respond?". Canadian Psychology. 54 (3): 166–175. doi:10.1037/a0033841.
  9. ^ Regier D, Narrow W, Clarke D, Kraemer H, Kuramoto S, Kuhl E, Kupfer D (2013). "DSM-5 Field Trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-Retest Reliability of Selected Categorical Diagnoses". American Journal of Psychiatry. 170 (1): 59–70. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999. PMID 23111466.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw "Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. May 17, 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 26, 2015.
  11. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 5–25. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
  12. ^ a b "A Guide to DSM-5: Neurodevelopmental Disorders". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  13. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Autism Spectrum Disorders". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  14. ^ Epstein JN, Loren RE (October 1, 2013). "Changes in the Definition of ADHD in DSM-5: Subtle but Important". Neuropsychiatry. 3 (5): 455–458. doi:10.2217/npy.13.59. ISSN 1758-2008. PMC 3955126. PMID 24644516.
  15. ^ "Specific Learning Disorder" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Retrieved September 18, 2023.
  16. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 74–85. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
  17. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Mixed-Mood Specifier". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  18. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Removal of the Bereavement Exclusion From MDD". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  19. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD)". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on September 18, 2017. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  20. ^ Friedman MJ, Resick, P. A., Bryant, R. A., Strain, J., Horowitz, M., Spiegel, D. (2011). "Classification of trauma and stressor-related disorders in DSM-5". Depression and Anxiety. 28 (9): 737–749. doi:10.1002/da.20845. PMID 21681870. S2CID 23325126.
  21. ^ a b Friedman MJ, Resick, P. A., Bryant, R. A., Brewin, C. R. (2011). "Considering PTSD for DSM-5". Depression and Anxiety. 28 (9): 750–769. doi:10.1002/da.20767. PMID 21910184. S2CID 38289406. Archived from the original on February 15, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2019.
  22. ^ Adler AB, Wright, K. M., Bliese, P. D., Eckford, R., Hoge, C. W. (2008). "A2 diagnostic criterion for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder". Journal of Traumatic Stress. 21 (3): 301–308. doi:10.1002/jts.20336. PMID 18553417.
  23. ^ Hathaway LM, Boals, A., Banks, J. B. (2010). "PTSD symptoms and dominant emotional response to a traumatic event: An examination of DSM-IV criterion A2". Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 23 (1): 119–126. doi:10.1080/10615800902818771. PMID 19337884. S2CID 42748380.
  24. ^ Karam EG, Andrews, G., Bromet, E., Petukhova, M., Ruscio, A. M., Salamoun, M., et al. (2010). "The Role of Criterion A2 in the DSM-IV Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder". Biological Psychiatry. 68 (5): 465–473. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.04.032. PMC 3228599. PMID 20599189.
  25. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
  26. ^ "Somatic Symptom Disorder" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 2, 2013. Retrieved April 6, 2014.
  27. ^ "Diagnostic Ethics: Harms/Benefits, Somatic Symptom Disorder". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on December 14, 2020. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  28. ^ "DSM-5 redefines hypochondriasis — For Medical Professionals — Mayo Clinic". mayoclinic.org. Archived from the original on February 23, 2015. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  29. ^ "Justina Pelletier: The Case Continues". Mad In America. April 4, 2014. Archived from the original on December 25, 2014. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  30. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Binge Eating Disorder". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 9, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  31. ^ "P 01 Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents or Adults". American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012. Retrieved April 2, 2012.
  32. ^ "P 00 Gender Dysphoria in Children". American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on March 14, 2012. Retrieved April 2, 2012.
  33. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Substance Use Disorder". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 9, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  34. ^ "Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5" (PDF). American Psychiatric Publishing. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. p. 16. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 19, 2013. The DSM-IV specifier for a physiological subtype has been eliminated in DSM-5, as has the DSM-IV diagnosis of polysubstance dependence.
  35. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Neurocognitive Disorder". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 10, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  36. ^ a b "Personality Disorders" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 19, 2013. Retrieved October 6, 2013.
  37. ^ Krueger RF, Hopwood CJ, Wright AG, Markon KE (September 1, 2014). "DSM-5 and the Path Toward Empirically Based and Clinically Useful Conceptualization of Personality and Psychopathology". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 21 (3): 245–261. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12073. ISSN 1468-2850.
  38. ^ Crocq MA (2013). "Milestones in the History of Personality Disorders" (PDF). Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 15 (2): 147–53. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.2/macrocq. PMC 3811086. PMID 24174889. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 21, 2016. Retrieved August 8, 2016.
  39. ^ "A Guide to DSM-5: Paraphilias and Paraphilic Disorders". Medscape.com. Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  40. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 783–808. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
  41. ^ First MB (2002), "A Research Agenda for DSM-V: Summary of the DSM-V Preplanning White Papers Published in May 2002", DSM-V Prelude Project, American Psychiatric Association, archived from the original on April 13, 2008, retrieved May 12, 2012
  42. ^ Kupfer, David J., First, Michael B., Regier, Darrel A., eds. (2002), A Research Agenda for DSM-5, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, ISBN 978-0-89042-292-2, OCLC 49518977, archived from the original on December 13, 2007, retrieved November 15, 2009
  43. ^ Regier DA, Narrow WE, First MB, Marshall T (2002). "The APA classification of mental disorders: future perspectives". Psychopathology. 35 (2–3): 166–170. doi:10.1159/000065139. PMID 12145504. S2CID 36938074.
  44. ^ a b "DSM-5 Research Planning", DSM-V Prelude Project, American Psychiatric Association, DSM-V Research White Papers, archived from the original on April 24, 2008, retrieved May 12, 2012
  45. ^ Regier DA (2007). "Somatic Presentations of Mental Disorders: Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V" (PDF). Psychosomatic Medicine. 69 (9): 827–828. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e31815afbe4. PMID 18040087. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 28, 2008. Retrieved December 21, 2007.
  46. ^ "Reliability and Prevalence in the DSM-5 Field Trials" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2012. Retrieved January 13, 2012.
  47. ^ Cosgrove L, Bursztajn HJ, Krimsky S (May 7, 2009). "Developing Unbiased Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines in Psychiatry". New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (19): 2035–2036. doi:10.1056/NEJMc0810237. PMID 19420379.
  48. ^ a b "About DSM-5 Frequently Asked Questions". American Psychiatric Association. Archived from the original on September 25, 2011. Retrieved May 24, 2015.
  49. ^ Harold E (March 9, 2010). "APA Modifies DSM Naming Convention to Reflect Publication Changes". No. Release No. 10-17. The American Psychiatric Association.
  50. ^ "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR™)". American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  51. ^ a b c Appelbaum PS, Leibenluft E, Kendler KS (November 1, 2021). "Iterative Revision of the DSM: An Interim Report From the DSM-5 Steering Committee". Psychiatric Services. 72 (11): 1348–1349. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.202100013. ISSN 1075-2730. PMID 33882702. S2CID 233349377.
  52. ^ "Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Retrieved June 11, 2023.
  53. ^ a b First MB, Yousif LH, Clarke DE, Wang PS, Gogtay N, Appelbaum PS (May 7, 2022). "DSM-5-TR: overview of what's new and what's changed". World Psychiatry. 21 (2): 218–219. doi:10.1002/wps.20989. ISSN 1723-8617. PMC 9077590. PMID 35524596.
  54. ^ "Prolonged grief disorder recognized as official diagnosis. Here's what to know about chronic mourning". Washington Post. September 8, 2022. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
  55. ^ "Supplemental Material for Same Name, Same Content? Evaluation of DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 Prolonged Grief Criteria". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2022. doi:10.1037/ccp0000720.supp. ISSN 0022-006X. S2CID 248338204.
  56. ^ "Updates to DSM-5 Criteria & Text". American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved April 18, 2022.
  57. ^ "Update: Exams to Transition to DSM-5". Psychiatric News. Vol. 49, no. 22. November 21, 2014. p. 1. doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2014.10a19.
  58. ^ Carey B (December 17, 2008). "Psychiatrists Revise the Book of Human Troubles". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 7, 2016. Retrieved February 24, 2017.
  59. ^ Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual. Archived January 22, 2014, at the Wayback Machine via PBS Newshour, February 10, 2010 (interviews Frances and Alan Schatzberg on some of the main changes proposed to the DSM-5)
  60. ^ "DSM-V Task Force Member Disclosure Report: David J Kupfer, MD" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2010. Retrieved May 6, 2011. and "DSM-V Task Force Member Disclosure Report: Darrel Alvin Regier M.D" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. May 2, 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 14, 2012. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  61. ^ DSM-5 Overview: The Future Manual | APA DSM-5 Archived December 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  62. ^ Registration page for DSM-5 public comment Archived May 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, page found June 5, 2011.
  63. ^ "Suggestions and ideas for members of the work groups were also solicited through the DSM-5 website. The proposed draft revisions to DSM-5 are posted on the website, and anyone can provide feedback to the work groups during periods of public comment."Question 4 on the DSM-5 FAQ Archived September 25, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, page found June 5, 2011.
  64. ^ Frances A (June 26, 2009). "A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-V: Beware of Its Unintended Consequences". Psychiatric Times. Archived from the original on October 26, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2009.
  65. ^ Lane C (July 24, 2009). "The Diagnostic Madness of DSM-V". Slate. Archived from the original on September 15, 2011. Retrieved December 2, 2009.
  66. ^ "Professor co-authors letter about America's mental health manual". Point Park University. December 12, 2011. Archived from the original on March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
  67. ^ Erin Allday (November 26, 2011). "Revision of psychiatric manual under fire". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on November 27, 2011. Retrieved December 14, 2020.
  68. ^ Carey B (May 8, 2012), "Psychiatry Manual Drafters Back Down on Diagnoses", The New York Times, nytimes.com, archived from the original on May 12, 2012, retrieved May 12, 2012
  69. ^ New DSM-5 Ignores Biology of Mental Illness Archived May 10, 2018, at the Wayback Machine; "The latest edition of psychiatry's standard guidebook neglects the biology of mental illness. New research may change that." May 5, 2013 Scientific American
  70. ^ Demazeux S, Singy P (2015). The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel. Springer. ISBN 978-94-017-9764-1.
  71. ^ Murphy D (2015). "Deviant deviance": Cultural diversity in DSM-5" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2016. Retrieved December 4, 2016.
  72. ^ Flanagan C, Jarvis M, Liddle R, Russel J, Wood M. Psychology for A level, Year 2. Illuminate Publishing.
  73. ^ Lou Chibbaro, Jr. (May 30, 2008). "Activists alarmed over APA: Head of psychiatry panel favors 'change' therapy for some trans teens". Washington Blade.
  74. ^ a b Alexander B (May 22, 2008). "What's 'normal' sex? Shrinks seek definition: Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition". NBC News. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved June 14, 2008.
  75. ^ a b Osborne D (May 15, 2008). "Flap Flares Over Gender Diagnosis". Gay City News. Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved June 14, 2008.
  76. ^ Sarda-Sorensen I (May 28, 2008). "Task Force questions critical appointments to APA's Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders". National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Archived from the original on July 25, 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2023.
  77. ^ a b Cosgrove L, Drimsky Lisa (March 2012). "A comparison of DSM-iv and DSM-5 panel members' financial associations with industry: A pernicious problem persists". PLOS Medicine. 9 (3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190. PMC 3302834. PMID 22427747.
  78. ^ Davis LC, Diianni AT, Drumheller SR, Elansary NN, D'Ambrozio GN, Herrawi F, Piper BJ, Cosgrove L (January 2024). "Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5-TR: cross sectional analysis". BMJ. 384: e076902. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076902. PMC 10777894. PMID 38199616.
  79. ^ Cosgrove L, Krimsky S, Vijayaraghavan M, Schneider L (April 2006), "Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry", Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75 (3): 154–160, doi:10.1159/000091772, PMID 16636630, S2CID 11909535
  80. ^ Cosgrove L, Bursztajn HJ, Kupfer DJ, Regier DA. "Toward Credible Conflict of Interest Policies in Clinical Psychiatry" Psychiatric Times 26:1.
  81. ^ Horwitz AV (August 17, 2021). DSM: A History of Psychiatry's Bible. JHU Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-4069-9.
  82. ^ "TARA4BPD". TARA4BPD. Archived from the original on November 22, 2009. Retrieved November 15, 2009.
  83. ^ "TARA Association for Personality Disorder". tara4bpd.org. Archived from the original on October 20, 2014. Retrieved January 29, 2015.
  84. ^ New A, Triebwasser Joseph, Charney Dennis (October 2008). "The case for shifting borderline personality disorder to Axis I" (PDF). Biol. Psychiatry. 64 (8): 653–9. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.04.020. PMID 18550033. S2CID 1106132. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 9, 2013. Retrieved May 8, 2013.
  85. ^ American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. pp. 663–6. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8.
  86. ^ "British Psychological Society Response, June 2011" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 17, 2016. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
  87. ^ "Director's Biography". National Institute of Mental Health. Archived from the original on May 23, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2013.
  88. ^ Insel T. "Transforming Diagnosis". National Institute of Mental Health. Archived from the original on May 29, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  89. ^ "NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) (Draft 3.1)". National Institute of Mental Health. June 2011. Archived from the original on June 1, 2013. Retrieved May 26, 2013.
  90. ^ Harbinger N (May 22, 2013). "Goodbye to the DSM-V". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on May 26, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  91. ^ "Federal institute for mental health abandons controversial 'bible' of psychiatry". Verge. May 3, 2013. Archived from the original on June 6, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  92. ^ "National Institute of Mental Health abandoning the DSM". Mind Hacks. May 3, 2013. Archived from the original on June 5, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  93. ^ "Psychiatry divided as mental health 'bible' denounced". New Scientist. Archived from the original on June 4, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  94. ^ "Did the NIMH Withdraw Support for the DSM-5? No". PsychCentral. May 7, 2013. Archived from the original on May 8, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    "Mental Health Researchers Reject Psychiatry's New Diagnostic 'Bible'". Time. May 7, 2013. Archived from the original on May 22, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    "THE RATS OF N.I.M.H." The New Yorker. May 16, 2013. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
    Belluck P, Carey B (May 6, 2013). "Psychiatry's Guide Is Out of Touch With Science, Experts Say". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 13, 2013. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  95. ^ a b "DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests". National Institute of Mental Health and American Psychiatric Association. May 13, 2013. Archived from the original on April 4, 2014. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
  96. ^ Aragona M. (2014) Epistemological reflections about the crisis of the DSM-5 and the revolutionary potential of the RDoC project Archived June 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 7: 11-20