Pallanti Stefano
1Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Psicologia,Area del Farmaco e Salute del Bambino (NEUROFARBA),University of Florence,Florence,Italy.
CNS Spectr. 2016 Aug;21(4):276-8. doi: 10.1017/S1092852916000146.
The two main diagnostic systems, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), have undergone a number of revisions since their first editions: whereas the fifth edition of the DSM has been published in 2013, the eleventh revision of the ICD is expected by 2018. Although the process of harmonization between the 2 systems is still a debated topic, the forthcoming revision of the ICD is seemingly converging toward the DSM approach in regard to the reclassification of a number of disorders. Nevertheless, the 2 systems still exhibit considerable differences, partly due to their different purposes, development and revision processes, and target audiences. Furthermore, while alternative and innovative classification approaches are emerging with the aim of integrating the latest findings from neuroscience and genomics, both the DSM and ICD still fail to incorporate core concepts such as the clinical staging of psychiatric disorders and "neuroprogression," as well as an adequate consideration of endophenotypes.
两个主要的诊断系统，即《国际疾病分类》（ICD）和《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》（DSM），自第一版以来已经历了多次修订：DSM的第五版于2013年出版，ICD的第十一版预计在2018年发布。尽管这两个系统之间的协调过程仍是一个有争议的话题，但即将到来的ICD修订版在一些疾病的重新分类方面似乎正朝着DSM的方法靠拢。然而，这两个系统仍然存在相当大的差异，部分原因在于它们不同的目的、开发和修订过程以及目标受众。此外，虽然为整合神经科学和基因组学的最新发现而出现了替代和创新的分类方法，但DSM和ICD仍然未能纳入诸如精神疾病的临床分期和“神经进展”等核心概念，以及对内表型的充分考虑。
