Cited by 30Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMigration, Health and TraumaPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

A comparison of ICD-11 and DSM criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder in two national samples of U.S. military veterans

Wisco, Blair E., Marx, Brian P., Miller, Mark W., Wolf, Erika J., Krystal, John H., Southwick, Steven M., Pietrzak, Robert H.·2017·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background The proposed ICD-11 criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) differ substantially from the DSM-5. ICD-11 eliminated several PTSD symptoms thought to be nonspecific, with the goal of reducing psychiatric comorbidities. However, this change also results in a narrower PTSD definition that may fail to capture individuals with clinically significant PTSD. The purpose of the current study was to compare prevalence and psychiatric comorbidities of DSM (IV/5) and ICD-11 PTSD. Methods We evaluated concordance between DSM (IV/5) and ICD-11 PTSD diagnoses in a web survey of two nationally representative samples of U.S. military veterans (ns = 3517 and 1484). Lifetime and past-month PTSD symptoms were assessed with the DSM-IV-based PTSD Checklist-Specific Stressor version and the DSM-5-based PTSD Checklist-5. Psychiatric comorbidities were assessed using MINI Neuropsychiatric Interview modules. Results A significantly greater proportion of veterans met criteria for lifetime and past-month PTSD under DSM-IV/5 than under ICD-11. 21.8-35.9% of those who met criteria under DSM IV/5 did not meet under ICD-11, whereas only 2.4-7.1% of those who met under ICD-11 did not meet under DSM-IV/5. Psychiatric comorbidities did not significantly differ between DSM-IV/5 and ICD-11. Limitations This study relied upon self-report measures of PTSD, distress/impairment, and psychiatric comorbidities. Conclusions The proposed ICD-11 criteria identify fewer PTSD cases than DSM-IV/5 without…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.006

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 12 · Cited by 30

Authors
Wisco, B. E., Marx, B. P., Miller, M. W., Wolf, E. J., Krystal, J. H., Southwick, S. M., & Pietrzak, R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Wisco, Blair E.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
223
Pages
17-19
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2729195130
Cited by
30
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, ICD-11, DSM-5, diagnostic criteria comparison, military veterans, psychiatric comorbidity, PTSD prevalence, diagnostic agreement, disability eligibility, MINI
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Military Personnel, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Veterans, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

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