The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009) 195: 379-381. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.071241
© 2009 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jablensky, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jablensky, A.

EDITORIAL

Towards ICD–11 and DSM–V: issues beyond ‘harmonisation’{dagger}

Assen Jablensky, MD, DMSc, MRCPsych, FRANZCP, Director

Centre for Clinical Research in Neuropsychiatry, The University of Western Australia School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, Medical Research Foundation Building Level 3, 50 Murray Street, Perth WA 6000, Australia. Email: assen{at}cyllene.uwa.edu.au

Declaration of interest

None.

{dagger} See pp. 382–390, this issue.

In the revision process leading up to DSM–V and ICD–11, it is important to highlight both similarities and differences between the two classifications. Where irreconcilable conceptual differences are involved, these should be stated in a manner inviting future research to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of alternative concepts or definitions. Eventually, both DSM–V and ICD–11 will need to be assessed against a set of benchmarks of validity and utility.


Related articles in BJP:

Harmonisation of ICD–11 and DSM–V: opportunities and challenges
Michael B. First
BJP 2009 195: 382-390. [Abstract] [Full Text]