Chowdhury A N
Institute of Psychiatry, Calcutta, India.
Cult Med Psychiatry. 1996 Mar;20(1):41-65. doi: 10.1007/BF00118750.
Attempts at defining and classifying Koro have been undertaken by various researchers over at least the last fifty years without any consensus emerging to date. The occurrence of Koro, not only in different parts of the world but also in association with varied morbidities, has of late diluted its primary identity as a culture-bound syndrome. Further, the DSM-IIIR and ICD-10 provisions to include culture-bound syndromes like Koro are open to various diagnostic options. Consideration was given to have it included in DSM-IV. One of the fundamental problems inherent in such attempts is the semantic confusion Koro generates in its basic phenomenological analysis. The present paper deals with some of these issues based on historical analysis of world Koro literature, and with comments on the future research agendum.
至少在过去五十年里，不同的研究人员都曾尝试对缩阳症进行定义和分类，但至今尚未达成任何共识。缩阳症不仅在世界不同地区出现，而且与各种疾病相关，这使得它作为一种文化相关综合征的主要特征逐渐淡化。此外，《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版修订本（DSM-IIIR）和《国际疾病分类》第十版（ICD-10）中关于纳入缩阳症等文化相关综合征的规定存在多种诊断选项。曾考虑将其纳入《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版（DSM-IV）。此类尝试中固有的一个基本问题是，缩阳症在其基本现象学分析中会产生语义混淆。本文基于对世界缩阳症文献的历史分析探讨了其中一些问题，并对未来的研究议程提出了看法。
