PubMed · 16092025
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Stephen B Levine. 2005. A slightly different idea.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7469-3
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Since the early eighties, there has been a growing interest in the descriptive epidemiology of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). In this narrative review, the authors describe the findings of a number of studies that employed selected instruments, such as the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, the Composite International Diagnostic Instrument, and the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, to ascertain the prevalence and incidence rates for OCD in several different countries. We noted that there is a great heterogeneity of findings and that the potential reasons for this variability include not only the intrinsic characteristics of the population under study but also extrinsic factors (i.e., the several methodologically-informed decisions that are to be made before undertaking such investigations, such as the adoption of a specific diagnostic instrument). In order to further the knowledge on the epidemiology of OCD, it would be worthwhile to establish a global consensus regarding a standard assessment package for OCD, to produce more cross-culturally valid versions of the key research instruments, and to conduct studies specifically aimed at comparing the sociodemographic, clinical and prognostic aspects of OCD across different countries.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight key research issues relevant to the diagnostic classification of somatoform disorders and assess whether DSM-V can facilitate research. METHODS: A selective review of recent research findings in relation to the diagnostic categories of somatization disorder and hypochondriasis. RESULTS: The DSM-IV criteria have been ignored by researchers as they were either too restrictive or too broad to study the associated features of somatization and hypochondriasis. In view of the linear relationship between number of bodily symptoms and impairment, the appropriate cutoff point has yet to be established. Ongoing research highlights the perceptual and cognitive aspects of these disorders, which need to be researched further in order to improve management. CONCLUSION: DSM-IV did not facilitate research. Its successor should enable longitudinal studies to further elucidate the causes and perpetuating factors of somatization and illness worry rather than limit such studies by producing artificial criteria that may not be supported by subsequent research.