Five years of experience with the DSM-III system in clinical work and research: some concluding remarks.

The reliability of the DSM-III is superior to other classification systems available in psychiatry. However, reliability depends on proper knowledge of the system. Some pitfalls reducing reliability of axis 1 diagnosis which commonly are overlooked are discussed. Secondly, some problems of validity of axis 1 and 2 are considered. This is done by discussing the differential diagnosis of organic mental disorders and other psychiatric disorders with concomittant physical dysfunction, and the diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorders and adjustment disorders among others. The emphasis on health care seeking behaviour as a diagnostic criteria in the DSM-III system, may cause a social, racial and sexual bias in DSM-III diagnoses. The present discussion of the DSM-III system from a clinical point of view indicates the need for validation studies based on clinical experience with the DSM-III. These studies should include more out-patients and patients with psychopathology who do not seek psychiatric treatment. Such studies must also apply alternative diagnostic standards like the ICD-9 and not only rely on structured psychiatric interviews constructed for DSM-III diagnoses. The discussion of axis 4 points to the problem of wanting to combine reliable rating with clinically meaningful information. It is concluded that the most important issue to be settled regarding axis 4 in the future revisions is the aim of including this axis. The discussion of axis 5 concludes that axis 5 is biased toward poor functioning and thus may be less usefull when applied on patients seen outside hospitals. Despite these problems of the DSM-III, our experiences indicate that the use of the DSM-III is fruitful both for the patient, the clinician and the researcher. Thus, the cost of time and effort needed to learn to use the DSM-III properly are small compared to the benefits achieved by using the system.