Reliability and Clinical Utility of ICD-11 Diagnostic Guidelines for Severe Mental Disorders in Nigeria

Bipolar disorder in the International Classification of Diseases-Eleventh version: A review of the changes, their basis, and usefulness

The World Health Organization’s 11^th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) including the chapter on mental disorders has come into effect this year. This review focuses on the “Bipolar or Related Disorders” section of the ICD-11 draft. It describes the benchmarks for the new version, particularly the foremost principle of clinical utility. The alterations made to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) are evaluated on their scientific basis and clinical utility. The change in the diagnostic requirements for manic and hypomanic episodes has been much debated. Whether the current criteria have achieved an optimum balance between sensitivity and specificity is still not clear. The ICD-11 definition of depressive episodes is substantially different, but the lack of empirical support for the changes has meant that the reliability and utility of bipolar depression are relatively low. Unlike the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th edition (DSM-5), the ICD-11 has retained the category of mixed episodes. Although the concept of mixed episodes in the ICD-11 is not perfect, it appears to be more inclusive than the DSM-5 approach. Additionally, there are some uncertainties about the guidelines for the subtypes of BD and cyclothymic disorder. The initial results on the reliability and clinical utility of BD are promising, but the newly created diagnostic categories also appear to have some limitations. Although further improvement and research are needed, the focus should now be on facing the challenges of implementation, dissemination, and education and training in the use of these guidelines.

Reliability and clinical utility of the chronic pain classification in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases from a global perspective: results from India, Cuba, and New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 persons and contributes substantially to the global burden of disease. The 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a comprehensive classification of chronic pain. The aim of this ecological implementation field study was to evaluate the classification's interrater reliability and clinical utility in countries with different income levels. The study was conducted in 4 pain clinics in Cuba, India, and New Zealand. Twenty-one clinicians used the ICD-11 to diagnose and code n = 353 patients with chronic pain. Of these, 111 were assessed by 2 clinicians, and Fleiss' kappa was calculated to establish interrater reliability for any diagnosis assigned to ≥15 patients. The clinicians rated the clinical utility of all diagnoses. The interrater reliability could be calculated for 11 diagnoses. It was substantial for 10 diagnoses and moderate for 1 (kappa: 0.596-0.783). The mean clinical utility of the ICD-11 chronic pain diagnoses was rated as 8.45 ± 1.69/10. Clinical utility was rated higher for ICD-11 than for the commonly used classification systems (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.25) and differed between all centers (P < 0.001, η2 = 0.60). The utility of the ICD-11 diagnoses was rated higher than the commonly used diagnoses in Dunedin and Havana, and no difference was found in Kolkata and Hyderabad. The study showed the high interrater reliability of the new chronic pain diagnoses. The perceived clinical utility of the diagnoses indicates their superiority or equality compared with the classification systems currently used in pain clinics. These results suggest the global applicability of the classification in specialized pain treatment settings.

Assessment of catatonia and inter-rater reliability of three instruments: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Clinical assessment of catatonia includes the use of diagnostic systems, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), or screening tools such as the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI)/Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and the Braunig Catatonia Rating Scale. In this study, we describe the inter-rater reliability (IRR), utilizing the BFCSI, BFCRS, and DSM-5 to screen for catatonia.

METHODS

Data from 10 participants recruited as part of a larger prevalence study (of 135 participants) were used to determine the IRR by five assessors after they were trained in the application of the 14-item BFCSI, 23-item BFCRS, and DSM-5 to assess catatonia in new admissions. Krippendorff's α was used to compute the IRR, and Spearman's correlation was used to determine the concordance between screening tools. The study site was a 35-bed acute mental health unit in Dora Nginza Hospital, Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. Participants were mostly involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Care Act of 2002 and between the ages of 13 and 65 years.

RESULTS

Of the 135 participants, 16 (11.9%) had catatonia. The majority (92 [68.1%]) were between 16 and 35 years old, with 126 (93.3%) of them being Black and 89 (66.4%) being male. The BFCRS (complete 23-item scale) had the greatest level of inter-rater agreement with α = 0.798, while the DSM-5 had the lowest level of inter-rater agreement with α = 0.565. The highest correlation coefficients were observed between the BFCRS and the BFCSI.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence rate of catatonia was 11.9%, with the BFCSI and BFCRS showing the highest pick-up rate and a high IRR with high correlation coefficients, while the DSM-5 had deficiencies in screening for catatonia with low IRR and the lowest correlation with the other two tools.