DSM-IV Somatoform Disorders Research Articles

Operationalization of diagnostic criteria of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorders

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to test the operationalization of DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder (SSD) psychological criteria among Chinese general hospital outpatients.MethodsThis multicenter, cross-sectional study enrolled 491 patients from 10 general hospital outpatient departments. The structured clinical “interview about cognitive, affective, and behavioral features associated with somatic complaints” was used to operationalize the SSD criteria B. For comparison, DSM-IV somatoform disorders were assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview plus. Cohen’s к scores were given to illustrate the agreement of the diagnoses.ResultsA three-structure model of the interview, within which items were classified as respectively assessing the cognitive (B1), affective (B2), and behavioral (B3) features, was examined. According to percentages of screening-positive persons and the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, a cut-off point of 2 was recommended for each subscale of the interview. With the operationalization, the frequency of DSM-5 SSD was estimated as 36.5% in our sample, and that of DSM-IV somatoform disorders was 8.2%. The agreement between them was small (Cohen’s к = 0.152). Comparisons of sociodemographic features of SSD patients with different severity levels (mild, moderate, severe) showed that mild SSD patients were better-off in terms of financial and employment status, and that the severity subtypes were congruent with the level of depression, anxiety, quality of life impairment, and the frequency of doctor visits.ConclusionsThe operationalization of the diagnosis and severity specifications of SSD was valid, but the diagnostic agreement between DSM-5 SSD and DSM-IV somatoform disorders was small. The interpretation the SSD criteria should be made cautiously, so that the diagnosis would not became over-inclusive.

DSM-5 somatic symptom disorder in patients with vertigo and dizziness symptoms

ObjectiveDSM-5 somatic symptom disorder (SSD) could potentially be a highly relevant diagnosis for patients with vertigo and dizziness. The criteria of SSD, particularly the B-criterion with its three components (cognitive, affective, behavioral), have however not yet been investigated in this patient group. MethodsWe evaluated a large sample (n=399) of outpatients presenting in a neurological setting. Physical examinations and a psychometric assessment (SCID-I) were conducted; patients completed self-report questionnaires. The diagnosis of SSD was assigned retrospectively. The prevalence of SSD, its diagnostic criteria, and its overlap with former DSM-IV somatoform disorders were evaluated; comparisons were drawn between (1) patients fulfilling different components of the B-criterion and (2) patients with diagnoses after DSM-IV vs. DSM-5. ResultsSSD was almost twice as common as DSM-IV somatoform disorders. Patients with all three components of the B-criterion reported the highest impairment levels. Patients with both DSM-IV somatoform disorders and DSM-5 SSD were more impaired compared to groups with one of the diagnoses; patients with DSM-IV somatoform disorders only were more impaired than those with SSD only. ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that SSD is highly prevalent in patients with vertigo and dizziness. The classification of severity based on the number of psychological symptoms appears valid and may assist in finding suitable treatment options according to clinical practice guidelines. Future studies should investigate the overlap of SSD and other psychiatric disorders, this may assist in better defining the diagnostic criteria of SSD.

The relation between the patient health questionnaire-15 and DSM somatic diagnoses.

BackgroundOur purpose was to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) in Taiwan, and to explore its relation to somatoform disorders (DSM-IV) and to somatic symptom and related disorders (DSM-5).MethodsWe recruited 471 individuals, 151 with somatoform disorders and 200 with somatic symptom and related disorders. Subjects completed the Chinese version of the PHQ-15, Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and received a DSM-IV- and DSM-5-based diagnostic interview. We performed exploratory factor analysis and assessed test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and correlation with BDI-II/BAI to confirm reliability and validity, and carried out ROC curve analysis to determine suitability for evaluation or screening purposes. PHQ-15 scores were compared between patients with various DSM-IV psychiatric diagnoses (such as DSM-IV somatoform disorders, panic disorder, other anxiety/depressive disorders) or no DSM-IV diagnosis and patients with DSM-5 somatic symptom and related disorders or no DSM-5 diagnosis.ResultsThe Chinese version identified cardiopulmonary, pain-fatigue, and gastrointestinal as major factors and had good reliability (0.803–0.930), internal consistency (0.637–0.861), and correlation coefficients with BDI-II/BAI (0.407–0.619, 0.536–0.721, respectively). The PHQ-15 scores were similar in patients with somatoform disorders and patients with panic disorder; higher in patients with somatoform disorders and panic disorder than in patients with other anxiety/depressive disorders; and significantly higher in patients with somatic symptom and related disorders than in patients without this diagnosis. The AUC of the PHQ-15 was 0.678 (cutoff 6/7) for screening somatoform disorders (DSM-IV) and 0.725 (cutoff 4/5) for screening somatic symptom and related disorders (DSM-5).ConclusionsThe Chinese version of the PHQ-15 is suitable for evaluating somatic symptom and related disorders. The preponderance of somatic symptom disorder in our sample, lack of evaluation of functional disorders, and recruitment solely from psychiatric clinics are possible limitations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1068-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Application of the Chinese Version of the Whiteley Index-7 for Detecting DSM-5 Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders

The Whiteley Index-7 (WI-7) is frequently used for evaluating patients with suspected hypochondriasis. However, information about its use on somatic symptom and related disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is still lacking. This study investigated the psychometric properties of the Mandarin Chinese version of the WI-7 and its application to evaluation of somatic symptom and related disorders. Participants completed the WI-7 and received diagnostic interview based on both Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) and DSM-5 criteria. Exploratory factor analysis was performed, and the test-retest reliability and the internal consistency of the WI-7 were assessed. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves were established, and the area under the curve was calculated to determine the cutoff point to distinguish DSM-IV somatoform disorders and DSM-5 somatic symptom and related disorders, respectively. A total of 471 subjects were recruited for this study. The exploratory factor analysis of the WI-7 identified a single factor. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the WI-7 were 0.829 and 0.836, respectively. The area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve using WI-7 to distinguish DSM-5 somatic symptom and related disorders is 0.660, higher than that when applying to distinguish DSM-IV somatoform disorders. The sensitivity and specificity at an optimal cutoff point of 0/1 are 0.645 and 0.675, respectively. The Mandarin Chinese version of the WI-7 is a potentially useful tool to detect individuals with DSM-5 somatic symptom and related disorders.

Geriatric Psychiatry: What's in a Name, and Five Concerns about DSM-5.

-

Validation of the 4DSQ somatization subscale in the occupational health care setting as a screener.

Somatoform disorders (physical symptoms without medical explanation that cause dysfunction) are prevalent in the occupational health (OH) care setting and are associated with functional impairment and absenteeism. Availability of psychometric instruments aimed at assessing somatoform disorders is limited. In the OH setting, so far only the Patient-Health-Questionnaire 15 has been validated as screener for somatoform disorder, and has been shown to have moderate validity. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is frequently used in the OH setting but the Somatization subscale is not validated yet. The aim of this study is to validate the 4DSQ Somatization subscale as screener for DSM-IV somatoform disorder in the OH setting by using the MINI interview as gold standard. Employees absent from work due to physical symptoms, for a period longer than 6 weeks and shorter than 2 years, were asked to participate in this study. They filled out the 4DSQ and underwent a MINI interview by telephone for DSM-IV classification. Specificity and sensitivity scores were calculated for all possible cut-off scores and a receiver operator curve was computed for the Somatization subscale. 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated for sensitivity and specificity. The Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ has an optimal cut point of 9, with specificity and sensitivity equal to 64.3 % [95 % CI (53.6; 73.7 %)] and 60.9 % [95 % CI (40.8; 77.8 %)], respectively. Receiver operator curves showed an area under the curve equal to 0.61 [SE = 0.07; 95 % CI (0.48; 0.75)] for the Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ. The 4DSQ Somatization subscale is a questionnaire of moderate sensitivity and specificity.

Somatoform disorders and rheumatic diseases: from DSM-IV to DSM-V.

Medically unexplained symptoms are considered 'somatoform disorders' in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The introduction of this nosographic category has been helpful in drawing attention to a previously neglected area, but has not been successful in promoting an understanding of the disorders' biological basis and treatment implications, probably because of a series of diagnostic shortcomings. The newly proposed DSM-V diagnostic criteria try to overcome the limitations of the DSM-IV definition, which was organised centrally around the concept of medically unexplained symptoms, by emphasising the extent to which a patient's thoughts, feelings and behaviours concerning their somatic symptoms are disproportionate or excessive. This change is supported by a growing body of evidence showing that psychological and behavioural features play a major role in causing patient disability and maintaining high level of health care use. Pain disorders is the sub-category of DSM-IV somatoform disorders that most closely resembles fibromyalgia. Regardless of the diagnostic changes recently brought about by DSM-V, neuroimaging studies have identified important components of the mental processes associated with a DSM- IV diagnosis of pain disorder.

Early Maladaptive Schemas in the Patients with Somatoform Disorders

Objective: Somatoform disorders are characterized by physical symptoms that suggest a medical condition but that are not fully explained by a medical condition. A number of studies have suggested the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for somatoform disorders. But, while it is clear that somatoform disorders are closely related to a number of cognitive factors, the precise nature of these relationships have not been elucidated yet. The aim of the present study was to determine the relationships between DSM-IV hypochondriasis and somatoform disorder diagnoses and the early maladaptive schemas which have been proposed by Young as the core of psychological problems. Method: We investigated a total of 28 patients aged 18-65 years, were diagnosed as Hypochondriasis or Somatization Disorder according to DSM-IV and 30 healthy controls. All participitans were assessed with The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-1). Data were obtained by using a Sociodemographic Questionnaire and Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form 3. Results: The main age of patients was 36,71 ± 10.39. Most of the patients were female, married and housewives. All early maladaptive schema scores of patients with somatoform disorders were higher than healthy controls. Conclusion: All early maladaptive schemas have been found to be related to somatoform disorders in this study. The role of not a specific one but a total of maladaptive schemas in etiology may reflect the unspecific general sources of the tendency to somatoform disorders.

What’s Next for Somatic Symptom Disorder?

What’s Next for Somatic Symptom Disorder?

Predictive validity and clinical utility of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder: Prospective 1-year follow-up study

ObjectiveTo compare the predictive validity and clinical utility of DSM-IV somatoform disorders and DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD) at 12-month follow-up. MethodsIn a sample of psychosomatic inpatients (n=322, mean age=45.6years (SD 10.0), 60.6% females) we prospectively investigated DSM-IV somatoform disorders and the DSM-5 diagnosis of SSD plus a variety of psychological characteristics, somatic symptom severity, and health-related quality of life at admission, discharge, and follow-up. ResultsDSM-IV diagnoses and DSM-5 SSD similarly predicted physical functioning at follow-up; SSD also predicted mental functioning at follow-up. Bodily weakness, intolerance of bodily complaints, health habits, and somatic attribution at admission were significant predictors of physical functioning at follow-up. The change in physical functioning during inpatient therapy was a significant predictor for the course of physical functioning until follow-up. ConclusionsPsychological symptoms appear to be predictively valid diagnostic criteria for the 12-month functional outcome in patients with SSD. Mental functioning can be better predicted by the DSM-5 diagnosis than by DSM-IV diagnoses. Not the change in single psychological features but in physical functioning during the treatment interval predicted the change in physical functioning until follow-up.

Subtyping demoralization in the medically ill by cluster analysis

Background and Objectives: There is increasing interest in the issue of demoralization, particularly in the setting of medical disease. The aim of this investigation was to use both DSM-IV comorbidity and the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR) in order to characterize demoralization in the medically ill. Methods: 1700 patients were recruited from 8 medical centers in the Italian Health System and 1560 agreed to participate. They all underwent a cross-sectional assessment with DSM-IV and DCPR structured interviews. 373 patients (23.9%) received a diagnosis of demoralization. Data were submitted to cluster analysis. Results: Four clusters were identified: demoralization and comorbid depression; demoralization and comorbid somatoform/adjustment disorders; demoralization and comorbid anxiety; demoralization without any comorbid DSM disorder. The first cluster included 27.6% of the total sample and was characterized by the presence of DSM-IV mood disorders (mainly major depressive disorder). The second cluster had 18.2% of the cases and contained both DSM-IV somatoform (particularly, undifferentiated somatoform disorder and hypochondriasis) and adjustment disorders. In the third cluster (24.7%), DSMIV anxiety disorders in comorbidity with demoralization were predominant (particularly, generalized anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder). The fourth cluster had 29.5% of the patients and was characterized by the absence of any DSM-IV comorbid disorder. Conclusions: The findings indicate the need of expanding clinical assessment in the medically ill to include the various manifestations of demoralization as encompassed by the DCPR. Subtyping demoralization may yield improved targets for psychosomatic research and treatment trials.

Construct validity and descriptive validity of somatoform disorders in light of proposed changes for the DSM-5

ObjectiveCurrent diagnostic criteria for somatoform disorders demand revisions due to their insufficient clinical as well as scientific usability. Various psychological and behavioral characteristics have been considered for the proposed new category Somatic Symptom Disorder (SSD). With this study, we were able to jointly assess the validity of these variables in an inpatient sample. MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, we investigated N=456 patients suffering from somatoform disorder, anxiety, or depression. Within one week after admission to the hospital, informed consent was obtained and afterwards, a diagnostic interview and a battery of self-report questionnaires were administered. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine which variables significantly add to construct and descriptive validity. ResultsSeveral features, such as somatic symptom severity, health worries, health habits, a self-concept of being weak, and symptom attribution, predicted physical health status in somatization. Overall, our model explained about 50% of the total variance. Furthermore, in comparison with anxious and depressed patients, health anxiety, body scanning, and a self-concept of bodily weakness were specific for DSM-IV somatoform disorders and the proposed SSD. ConclusionsThe present study supports the inclusion of psychological and behavioral characteristics in the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for somatoform disorders. Based on our results, we make suggestions for a slight modification of criterion B to enhance construct validity of the Somatic Symptom Disorder.

Predictive validity and clinical utility of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder — Comparison with DSM-IV somatoform disorders and additional criteria for consideration

ObjectiveMajor changes to the diagnostic category of somatoform disorders are being proposed for DSM-5. The effect of e.g. the inclusion of psychological criteria (criterion B) on prevalence, predictive validity, and clinical utility of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” (SSD) remains unclear. A prospective study was conducted to compare current and new diagnostic approaches. MethodsIn a sample of N=456 psychosomatic inpatients (61% female, mean age=44.8±10.4years) diagnosed with somatoform, depressive and anxiety disorders, we investigated the current DSM-5 proposal (SSD) plus potential psychological criteria, somatic symptom severity, and health-related quality of life at admission and discharge. ResultsN=259 patients were diagnosed with DSM-IV somatoform disorder (56.8%). With a threshold of 6 on the Whiteley Index to assess psychological criteria, the diagnosis of SSD was similarly frequent (51.8%, N=230). However, SSD was a more frequent diagnosis when we employed the recommended threshold of one subcriterion of criterion B. Patients diagnosed with only SSD but not with DSM-IV somatoform disorder showed greater psychological impairment. Both diagnoses similarly predicted physical functioning at discharge. Bodily weakness and somatic and psychological attributions at admission were among significant predictors of physical functioning at discharge. Reduction of health anxiety, bodily weakness, and body scanning significantly predicted an improvement of physical functioning. ConclusionsPsychological symptoms enhance predictive validity and clinical utility of DSM-5 Somatic Symptom Disorder compared to DSM-IV somatoform disorders. The SSD diagnosis identifies more psychologically impaired patients than its DSM-IV precursor. The currently suggested diagnostic threshold for criterion B might increase the disorder's prevalence.

Prevalence, demographic and clinical characteristics of body dysmorphic disorder among psychiatric outpatients with mood, anxiety or somatoform disorders

Aims: To describe the prevalence, demographic and clinical characteristics of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) compared with other psychiatric outpatients with a mood, anxiety or somatoform disorder. Method: Outpatients referred for treatment of a mood, anxiety or somatoform disorder were routinely assessed at intake. A structured interview (MINI-Plus), observer-based and self-rating instruments were administered by an independent assessor. Results: Among our sample of 3798 referred patients, 2947 patients were diagnosed with at least one DSM-IV mood, anxiety or somatoform disorder. Of these patients 1.8% (n = 54) met the diagnostic criteria for BDD. In comparison with other outpatients, patients with BDD were on average younger, less often married and were more often living alone. Highly prevalent comorbid diagnoses were major depression (in 46.3% of cases), social anxiety disorder (in 35.2% of cases) and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) (in 16.7% of cases). Furthermore, patients with BDD had higher scores on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) as well as lower scores on the Short Form 36 social role functioning. Conclusion: BDD is frequently associated with depression, social phobia and OCD. Patients with BDD have more distress and more impaired interpersonal functioning.

One single diagnosis, bodily distress syndrome, succeeded to capture 10 diagnostic categories of functional somatic syndromes and somatoform disorders

BackgroundIn order to clarify the classification of physical complaints not attributable to verifiable, conventionally defined diseases, a new diagnosis of bodily distress syndrome was introduced. The aim of this study was to test if patients diagnosed with one of six different functional somatic syndromes or a DSM-IV somatoform disorder characterized by physical symptoms were captured by the new diagnosis. MethodA stratified sample of 978 consecutive patients from neurological (n=120) and medical (n=157) departments and from primary care (n=701) was examined applying post-hoc diagnoses based on the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry diagnostic instrument. Diagnoses were assigned only to clinically relevant cases, i.e., patients with impairing illness. ResultsBodily distress syndrome included all patients with fibromyalgia (n=58); chronic fatigue syndrome (n=54) and hyperventilation syndrome (n=49); 98% of those with irritable bowel syndrome (n=43); and at least 90% of patients with noncardiac chest pain (n=129), pain syndrome (n=130), or any somatoform disorder (n=178). The overall agreement of bodily distress syndrome with any of these diagnostic categories was 95% (95% CI 93.1–96.0; kappa 0.86, P<.0001). Symptom profiles of bodily distress syndrome organ subtypes were similar to those of the corresponding functional somatic syndromes with diagnostic agreement ranging from 90% to 95%. ConclusionBodily distress syndrome seem to cover most of the relevant “somatoform” or “functional” syndromes presenting with physical symptoms, not explained by well-recognized medical illness, thereby offering a common ground for the understanding of functional somatic symptoms. This may help unifying research efforts across medical disciplines and facilitate delivery of evidence-based care.

P01-291 - Prevalence of differnt somatoform disorders in psychiatric consultations of a general hospital: a 10-year study in farabi hospital

AimTo find the prevalence of different Somatoform Disorders (SDs) in psychiatric consultations to inpatients and outpatients of Farabi General Hospital(Kermanshah-Iran) in 10 years (from 1994 to 2004) and to define their demographic variables.MethodsAny patient, who received an SD diagnosis by the consultants, was further assessed, using a two-phase design, for DSM-IV SD criteria.ResultsA total of 801 patients fulfilled diagnostic criteria for a DSM-IV SD. Among these 493(61.5%) had Conversion Disorder, 127(15.9%) Somatization Disorder, 117(14.6%) Hypochondriasis, 41(5.1%) a Body Dysmorphic Disorder and 23(2.9%) a Pain Disorder).Most of the patients were young, female, married and not educated more than primary school.ConclusionSomatoform Disorders are common in psychiatric consultations of General Hospitals. Internists, surgeons and other specialists need to be aware of these disorders.

Which factors predict the persistence of DSM-IV depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders in the medically ill three months post hospital discharge?

Objective This study sought to assess the persistence of DSM-IV depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorders in a sample of 206 medical patients 3 months after hospital discharge and to examine which baseline factors predicted the persistence of disorder. Methods Patients were interviewed using the Monash Interview for Liaison Psychiatry (a structured psychiatric interview for the medically ill) during admission and again at 3 months post discharge. Scales completed during admission elicited sociodemographic data, psychiatric history, mental and physical functioning, illness behavior, coping modes, and number of close relationships. Best-subset logistic regression was employed to find the best combination of these potential predictors of the persistence of psychiatric disorder. Results Persistence of anxiety disorders [n=43; 50.6%; 95% CI=39.5–61.6], depression ( n=55; 44.4%; 95% CI=35.4–53.5), and somatoform disorders ( n=35; 42.2%; 95% CI=31.3–53.0) was moderately high, with no statistically significant difference in the rate of persistence of the three groups of disorder. Family psychiatric history, education, and poorer physical and mental functioning during hospitalization predicted persistence of depression. Poorer mental functioning, less denial, and greater number of close relationships predicted persistence of anxiety disorders. Higher levels of education, use of acceptance–resignation as a coping mechanism, and greater hypochondriasis predicted persistence of somatoform disorders. Conclusion The belief that psychiatric disorders in hospitalized medically ill patients spontaneously remit after discharge is false. A substantial proportion persist for at least 3 months. Early detection and treatment is possible and warranted. Features of the illness (poorer physical and mental health) and personal and social factors identifiable at hospital admission identify patients at risk for persistence.

The outcome of medically unexplained symptoms—Will DSM-V improve on DSM-IV somatoform disorders?

This systematic review aimed to identify (1) what is patients, so the course and outcome are bound to vary known about the course and outcome of medically unexplained symptoms and (2) the determinants of outcome. The authors approached this topic from the perspective of primary care contrasting the published literature, which tends to regard medically unexplained symptoms as a group of chronic and disabling disorders, with that from primary care where many patients have transient medically unexplained symptoms with a good prognosis. Their search of the literature concerned “medically unexplained symptoms,” “somatisation disorder,” and “hypochondriasis” but was not very fruitful: only six articles concerned with the outcome of medically unexplained symptoms, six articles on hypochondriasis, and one article on abridged somatization met their inclusion criteria. Nearly half of these studies had been included in a review published 4 years ago [1]. The inclusion criteria were not unreasonable; the relevant research has not been done. For example, the authors could not find any prospective cohort study on DSM-IV somatoform disorders. The authors decided not to study specific “functional” syndromes, such as chronic widespread pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, and irritable bowel syndrome, or single symptom disorders, such as headache, as they considered that the undifferentiated medically unexplained symptoms present the greatest difficulty to doctors. There are a number of difficulties with such work. The principal one lies in the fact that patients described as having medically unexplained symptoms do not have a discrete disorder—they form a heterogeneous group of

An Integrative Approach to Somatoform Disorders Combining Interpersonal and Cognitive-behavioral Theory and Techniques

Data regarding the treatment of somatoform disorders suggest that the gains associated with current psychopharmacologic or psychotherapeutic treatments are modest at best. There have been a few moderately effective treatments for selected functional somatic syndromes, but patients who present with multi-system symptoms meeting criteria for the DSM-IV somatoform disorders are notoriously unresponsive to treatment. Experts in the field have advocated several approaches, including interpersonally oriented and cognitive-behavioral therapies, and have emphasized the importance of the provision of reassurance within the doctor-patient relationship. While each individual approach has merit, none is likely to be maximally efficacious as a stand-alone treatment. In this article we describe the theoretical underpinnings and technical aspects of a treatment for somatizing patients that integrates these three elements.

Somatoform disorders in DSM-IV: Mental or physical disorders?

Objective To examine analytically the question of whether the characterization of somatoform disorders (SFDs) in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition ( DSM-IV) provides adequate grounds for classifying them as mental disorders rather than as physical disorders. Methods Analytical examination. Results There are prima facie grounds for classifying SFDs as physical disorders since they are characterized by physical symptoms. The characterization of SFDs in DSM-IV does not provide adequate grounds for classifying them as mental disorders. Conclusion The spectrum of SFDs is drawn too widely in DSM-IV. At least some of the conditions now listed as SFDs in DSM-IV should be either given a dual diagnosis or classified simply as physical disorders.