Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Culture and the anxiety disorders: recommendations for DSM-V

Open access
Lewis-Fernández, Roberto, Hinton, Devon E., Laria, Amaro J., Patterson, Elissa H., Hofmann, Stefan G., Craske, Michelle G., Stein, Dan J., Asnaani, Anu, Liao, Betty·2010·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The anxiety disorders specified in the fourth edition, text revision, of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR) are identified universally in human societies, and also show substantial cultural particularities in prevalence and symptomatology. Possible explanations for the observed epidemiological variability include lack of measurement equivalence, true differences in prevalence, and limited validity or precision of diagnostic criteria. One central question is whether, through inadvertent "over-specification" of disorders, the post-DSM-III nosology has missed related but somewhat different presentations of the same disorder because they do not exactly fit specified criteria sets. This review canvases the mental health literature for evidence of cross-cultural limitations in DSM-IV-TR anxiety disorder criteria. METHODS: Searches were conducted of the mental health literature, particularly since 1994, regarding cultural or race/ethnicity-related factors that might limit the universal applicability of the diagnostic criteria for six anxiety disorders. RESULTS: Possible mismatches between the DSM criteria and the local phenomenology of the disorder in specific cultural contexts were found for three anxiety disorders in particular. These involve the unexpectedness and 10-minute crescendo criteria in Panic Disorder; the definition of social anxiety and social reference group in Social Anxiety Disorder; and the priority given to psychological symptoms of worry in Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Limited evidence was found throughout, particularly in terms of neurobiological markers, genetic risk factors, treatment response, and other DSM-V validators that could help clarify the cross-cultural applicability of criteria. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the available data, options and preliminary recommendations for DSM-V are put forth that should be further evaluated and tested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.20647

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Lewis-Fernández, R., Hinton, D. E., Laria, A. J., Patterson, E. H., Hofmann, S. G., Craske, M. G., Stein, D. J., Asnaani, A., & Liao, B.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2010-02
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
212-229
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
OpenAlex
W2148716819
Cited by
227
References
22
FWCI
9.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.