Nafarieh Kiana, Krüger Sophia, Deutscher Karl, Schreiter Stefanie, Mundt Adrian P, Jung Andreas, Fazel Seena, Heinz Andreas, Gutwinski Stefan
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Medical Faculty, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile.
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2025 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s00406-025-02046-4.
The eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) introduces Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) as a new diagnostic category. This paper summarizes methodological approaches and prevalence estimates of studies on PGD in ICD-11.
This review follows the JBI Manual of Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (2011-2024), along with grey literature sources (Web of Science, Science.gov, NDLTD Global ETD Search). Included studies were cross-sectional or longitudinal, evaluating PGD prevalence using ICD-11 criteria. Two reviewers (KN, SK) independently screened studies, with a third (SG) resolving disagreements. Methodological quality was not assessed. Data extraction covered bibliographic details, study period, location, sample characteristics, diagnostic tools, algorithms, and prevalence.
Of 124 screened records, 35 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis. Seven main study categories emerged, primarily bereaved adults and representative national samples. Of 46 study samples, 24 were from Europe, followed by North America (n = 10) and Asia (n = 5), with none from South America. The PG-13 was the most commonly used tool, often omitting and raising ICD-11 PGD criteria simultaneously. ICD-11 PGD prevalence ranged from 1.5 to 15.3% in bereaved adults and 9.9-11.4% in national samples.
Findings reveal heterogeneous study populations but limited geographic diversity. Standardized PGD assessments aligned with ICD-11 criteria, using tools specifically designed for ICD-11, along with detailed sample reporting, are needed to improve study comparability and consistency of prevalence. Important gaps by geographical and demographic groups remain.
《国际疾病分类》(ICD - 11)第十一版引入了持续性悲伤障碍(PGD)作为一个新的诊断类别。本文总结了ICD - 11中关于PGD研究的方法学途径和患病率估计。
本综述遵循JBI循证综合手册和PRISMA - ScR指南。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、科学引文索引和PsycINFO(2011 - 2024),以及灰色文献来源(科学引文索引、Science.gov、NDLTD全球电子学位论文搜索)。纳入的研究为横断面研究或纵向研究,使用ICD - 11标准评估PGD患病率。两名评审员(KN、SK)独立筛选研究,第三名评审员(SG)解决分歧。未评估方法学质量。数据提取涵盖文献细节、研究时期、地点、样本特征、诊断工具、算法和患病率。
在124条筛选记录中,35项研究纳入定性综合分析。出现了七个主要研究类别,主要是丧亲成年人和具有代表性的全国样本。在46个研究样本中,24个来自欧洲,其次是北美(n = 10)和亚洲(n = 5),没有来自南美洲的。PG - 13是最常用的工具,经常同时遗漏和提高ICD - 11 PGD标准。丧亲成年人中ICD - 11 PGD患病率在1.5%至15.3%之间,全国样本中为9.9% - 11.4%。
研究结果显示研究人群存在异质性,但地理多样性有限。需要使用专门为ICD - 11设计的工具进行与ICD - 11标准一致的标准化PGD评估,并详细报告样本,以提高研究的可比性和患病率的一致性。地理和人口群体方面仍存在重要差距。