Cited by 28Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Comparison of ICD-10 Diagnostic Guidelines and Research Criteria for Enduring Personality Change after Catastrophic Experience

Beltran, Ruth O., Silove, Derrick, Llewellyn, Gwynnyth M.·2009·Psychopathology

Abstract

Enduring personality change after catastrophic experience (EPCACE) is a diagnostic category included in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10), as one of the adult personality disorders. Preliminary investigation suggests there is considerable endorsement in principle for this new category amongst experts in the field of intentional human trauma, yet many aspects of the diagnosis remain contentious. EPCACE is described in 2 sets of ICD-10 criteria: the Diagnostic Criteria for Research (DCR) and the Clinical Description and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG). Studies have found that the use of the DCR and CDDG for some disorders has created issues related to lack of compatibility and agreement between these 2 versions. This article examines the similarities and differences between the DCR and CDDG for EPCACE. Using background literature to inform our analysis, this article highlights issues related to the stressor criterion, symptom criteria, impairment criterion, criterion related to exclusion of personal vulnerability and early psychiatric history, symptom duration and relationship of post-traumatic-stress disorder with EPCACE. The similarities and differences between the research criteria and diagnostic guidelines of EPCACE are consistent with concerns already identified in the literature for other disorders. This presents a challenge to the way in which diagnostic criteria are conceptualized and stated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000204761

Cites

41 of 41 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beltran, R. O., Silove, D., & Llewellyn, G. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
Venue
Psychopathology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2009
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
113-118
ISSN
  • 0254-4962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-033X
OpenAlex
W2013448320
Cited by
28
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
ICD-10, diagnostic criteria, research criteria, personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, diagnostic classification, symptom duration
MeSH terms
Humans, Life Change Events, Personality Disorders, Research, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Guidelines as Topic, 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