The assessment of cognitive impairment would be a relevant addition to the criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia

Development of DSM-V and ICD-11: tendencies and potential of new classifications in psychiatry at the current state of knowledge

A reason for the necessity to revise ICD-10 and DSM-IV is the increase of knowledge in the past 20 years, especially neurobiological knowledge. But is this increase of knowledge, for example in the field of neurogenetics, of such magnitude that a revision of the psychiatric classification is necessary and promises to be fruitful? The current plans for DSM-V or ICD-11, respectively, focus on different improvements. In this context also the introduction of a purely syndromatic/dimensional approach without including etiopathogenetic hypotheses, is discussed. A switch to such a dimensional approach, which was discussed among others in the DSM-V task force Deconstructing Psychosis, would be the most radical development. It could avoid many theoretical pre-assumptions about causal hypotheses, which are still associated with ICD-10 and DSM-IV. This would indeed increase the validity of psychiatric classification, but it would also reduce the information as compared to traditional diagnostic categories with all the current implications concerning etiopathogenesis, therapy and prognosis. Such a dimensional approach would also mean that the syndromes would have to be assessed in a standardized way for each person seeking help from the psychiatric service system or for each person undergoing psychiatric research. This would have to be a multi-dimensional assessment covering all syndromes existing within different psychiatric disorders. Based on the different aspects that must be considered in this context, a careful revision seems more advisable than a radical change of classification.

The forthcoming revision of the diagnostic and classificatory system: perspectives based on the European psychiatric tradition

Europe has a rich tradition in psychopathology and psychiatric classification. This could be helpful developing new classification systems like ICD-11 and DSM-V. Some examples of this are described and further discussed, such as the categorical vs. the syndromatological approach, the relevance of hierarchical rules for the delineation of nosological entities, the antagonistic tradition of unitarian vs. splitting approaches and the relevance of a differentiated psychopathological description. Finally, the conclusion is that a too radical change of the classificatory system, e.g. in the direction of a purely symptomatical/dimensional systematic, or a totally new classification based on modern new biological findings, might be problematic and premature.

Systematic of psychiatric disorders between categorical and dimensional approaches: Kraepelin's dichotomy and beyond

This paper describes basic principles of systematics for psychiatric disorders such as the categorical and dimensional approach. It summarises validity aspects of the traditional psychiatric nosology and syndromatology. The importance and limitations of the dichotomy of schizophrenia and affective disorders, first suggested by Kraepelin, is reviewed in the light of results from modern research in the field of classification, follow-up and neurobiological studies, especially neurochemical, neurogenetic and neuroimaging studies. Current developments towards DSM-V and ICD-11 are critically reflected. The conclusion is reached that there might be insufficient data to establish a new systematics of psychoses. Therefore it might be premature to leave the Kraepelinian dichotomy totally although it has to be modified in the light of new research.