Cited by 98Schizophrenia research and treatmentBipolar Disorder and TreatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

Schizoaffective disorder–an ongoing challenge for psychiatric nosology

Jäger, M., Haack, S., Becker, T., Frasch, K.·2011·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: Schizoaffective disorder is a common diagnosis in mental health services. The present article aims to provide an overview of diagnostic reliability, symptomatology, outcome, neurobiology and treatment of schizoaffective disorder. Method: Literature was identified by searches in “Medline” and “Cochrane Library”. Results: The diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder has a low reliability. There are marked differences between the current diagnostic systems. With respect to psychopathological symptoms, no clear boundaries were found between schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and affective disorders. Common neurobiological factors were found across the traditional diagnostic categories. Schizoaffective disorder according to ICD-10 criteria, but not to DSM-IV criteria, shows a more favorable outcome than schizophrenia. With regard to treatment, only a small and heterogeneous database exists. Conclusion: Due to the low reliability and questionable validity there is a substantial need for revision and unification of the current diagnostic concepts of schizoaffective disorder. If future diagnostic systems return to Kraepelin's dichotomous classification of non-organic psychosis or adopt a dimensional diagnostic approach, schizoaffective disorder will disappear from the psychiatric nomenclature. A nosological model with multiple diagnostic entities, however, would be compatible with retaining the diagnostic category of schizoaffective disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.03.010

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jäger, M., Haack, S., Becker, T., & Frasch, K.
Affiliations
Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Jäger, M.
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2011-04
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
159-165
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W1966733434
Cited by
98
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
schizoaffective disorder, psychiatric classification, diagnostic reliability, diagnostic validity, schizophrenia, mood disorders, ICD-10 diagnostic criteria, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, neurobiology, treatment, outcomes
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Reproducibility of Results, International Classification of Diseases

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