Cited by 251Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

How to Use the New DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder Diagnosis in Research and Practice: A Critical Evaluation and a Proposal for Modifications

Open access
Rief, Winfried, Martin, Alexandra·2014·Annual Review of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) changed the term “somatoform disorders” to “somatic symptom and related disorders” and further modified diagnostic labels and criteria. We review evidence for the validity of the new criteria, specifically of somatic symptom disorder (SSD), and present a critical discussion of unsolved and new problems. We also provide an update of mechanisms and interventions that have been empirically evaluated in somatoform disorders. For many mechanisms, it is unclear whether their role can be easily transposed to SSD. Therefore more research is needed on the similarities and differences between medically unexplained and medically explained conditions. To overcome the obvious shortcomings of the current classification, we offer a modification of this DSM-5 section as well as a crossover system to apply these criteria for somatic symptom and related disorders. This proposal allows working with DSM-5 but also continuing successful lines of research with concepts such as hypochondriasis/illness anxiety, chronic pain, and medically unexplained versus medically explained syndromes.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153745

Cites

154 of 154 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?

  • All three 'third wave' therapies could positively impact emotion regulation and interrupt reinforcement processes related to symptoms, thus reducing comorbid depression and anxiety.

    “Hence, all of these three “third wave” therapies could have a positive impact on emotion regulation processes and interrupt patients' reinforcement processes related to their symptoms (8), thus also reducing comorbid depression and anxiety (4).”

    From Efficacy of mindfulness- and acceptance-based cognitive-behavioral therapies for bodily distress in adults: a meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    In “The New Proposal of Somatic Symptom Disorder and Its Relevance for Intervention Research” (page unavailable), the review says third-wave interventions can be effective and identifies emotion regulation as relevant to somatic symptoms. In “Emotion Regulation and Early Adverse Life Experiences” (page unavailable), it discusses reinforcement processes in symptom maintenance. It does not say that all three therapies improve emotion regulation or interrupt those processes. The separate claim about reducing comorbid depression and anxiety is attached to citation (4), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The distinction in somatic symptom severity between IAD and SSD might be arbitrary.

    “These findings suggest that the distinction in somatic symptom severity between these disorders might be arbitrary [25, 27].”

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: 1

  1. Gropalis M, Bleichhardt G, Hiller W, Witth öft M. 2012. Specificity and modifiability of cognitive biases in hypochondriasis. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 81(3):1-8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rief, W., & Martin, A.
Affiliations
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Wuppertal (DE)
Venue
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
Published
2014-03-28
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
339-367
ISSN
  • 1548-5943 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-5951
OpenAlex
W2129470539
Cited by
251
References
154
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
somatic symptom disorder, somatic symptom and related disorders, DSM-5, diagnostic criteria, somatoform disorders, medically unexplained symptoms, health anxiety, fear of illness, chronic pain, diagnostic classification, intervention
MeSH terms
Humans, Somatoform Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, 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