Cited by 60Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesMental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health and Psychiatry

Concordance between the diagnostic guidelines for alcohol and cannabis use disorders in the draft ICD‐11 and other classification systems: analysis of data from the WHO's World Mental Health Surveys

Open access
Degenhardt, Louisa, Bharat, Chrianna, Bruno, Raimondo, Glantz, Meyer D., Sampson, Nancy A., Lago, Luise, Aguilar‐Gaxiola, Sergio, Alonso, Jordi +19 more·2019·Addiction

Abstract

Background and aims: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD‐11) includes several major revisions to substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses. It is essential to ensure the consistency of within‐subject diagnostic findings throughout countries, languages and cultures. To date, agreement analyses between different SUD diagnostic systems have largely been based in high‐income countries and clinical samples rather than general population samples. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of, and concordance between diagnoses using the ICD‐11, The WHO's ICD 10th edition (ICD‐10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th and 5th editions (DSM‐IV, DSM‐5); the prevalence of disaggregated ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 symptoms; and variation in clinical features across diagnostic groups. Design: Cross‐sectional household surveys. Setting: Representative surveys of the general population in 10 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain) of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Participants: Questions about SUDs were asked of 12 182 regular alcohol users and 1788 cannabis users. Measurements: Each survey used the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.0 (WMH‐CIDI). Findings: Among regular alcohol users, prevalence (95% confidence interval) of life‐time ICD‐11 alcohol harmful use and dependence were 21.6% (20.5–22.6%) and 7.0% (6.4–7.7%), respectively. Among cannabis users, 9.3% (7.4–11.1%) met criteria for ICD‐11 harmful use and 3.2% (2.3–4.0%) for dependence. For both substances, all comparisons of ICD‐11 with ICD‐10 and DSM‐IV showed excellent concordance (all κ ≥ 0.9). Concordance between ICD‐11 and DSM‐5 ranged from good (for SUD and comparisons of dependence and severe SUD) to poor (for comparisons of harmful use and mild SUD). Very low endorsement rates were observed for new ICD‐11 feature for harmful use (‘harm to others’). Minimal variation in clinical features was observed across diagnostic systems. Conclusions: The World Health Organization's proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD‐11) classifications for substance use disorder diagnoses are highly consistent with the ICD 10th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM‐IV). Concordance between ICD‐11 and the DSM 5th edition (DSM‐5) varies, due largely to low levels of agreement for the ICD harmful use and DSM‐5 mild use disorder. Diagnostic validity of self‐reported ‘harm to others’ is questionable.

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 · 10.1111/add.14482

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]Kendell RE. Clinical validity In: Robins LN, Barrett JE, eds. The Validity of Psychiatric Diagnosis. New York: Raven Press; 1989: 305– 21.
  2. [27]Kessler RC, Üstün TB. The WHO Mental Health Surveys: global perspectives on the epidemiology of mental disorders. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Degenhardt, L., Bharat, C., Bruno, R., Glantz, M. D., Sampson, N. A., Lago, L., Aguilar‐Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Andrade, L. H., Bunting, B., Caldas‐de‐Almeida, J. M., Cia, A. H., Gureje, O., Karam, E. G., Khalaf, M., McGrath, J. J., Moskalewicz, J., Lee, S., Mneimneh, Z., Navarro‐Mateu, F., Sasu, C. C., Scott, K., Torres, Y., Poznyak, V., Chatterji, S., Kessler, R. C., & Collaborators, O. B. O. T. W. W. M. H. S.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • UC Davis Health (US)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
  • Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Lisbon Institute of Global Mental Health and Chronic Diseases Research Center (CEDOC), NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas Universidade Nova de Lisboa Lisbon Portugal
  • Anxiety Disorders Center Buenos Aires Argentina
  • University College Hospital, Ibadan (NG)
  • University of Balamand (LB)
  • University of Mosul (IQ)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology (PL)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria (ES)
  • National School of Public Health, Management and Professional Development (RO)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Universidad CES (CO)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Degenhardt, Louisa
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-09
Volume
114
Issue
3
Pages
534-552
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2898700233
Cited by
60
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • SUMA (Spanish Federation of Mathematics Teachers' Societies (FESPM)) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1081984)
  • World Health Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
alcoholism, cannabis use disorder, ICD-11, diagnostic agreement, ICD-10, DSM-IV, DSM-5, substance dependence, prevalence, harm to others, diagnostic classification systems, World Mental Health Survey Initiative, Composite International Diagnostic Interview, general population survey, cross-national comparison, harm reduction
MeSH terms
Alcoholism, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Marijuana Abuse, Colombia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Surveys and Questionnaires, Romania, Spain, World Health Organization, Substance-Related Disorders, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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