ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2020
Accuracy of diagnostic classification and clinical utility assessment of ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 in 10 mental disorders: findings from a web-based field study.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using AI to Train Future Clinicians in Depression Assessment: Feasibility Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Factors associated with clinical coders' intention to use the international classification of diseases 11th revision (ICD-11): a cross-sectional study in Iran.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Effect of auricular pressure bean combined with wrist-ankle needle on cognitive function and prognosis in migraine patients with anxiety and depression disorders.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Potentially inappropriate medications use among the older patients diagnosed with psychiatric diseases in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Mental health professionals' use of the ICD-11 classification of impulse control disorders and behavioral addictions: An international field study.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2024Article
- Article
- The future of diagnosis in clinical neurosciences: Comparing multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023Review
- Bipolar disorder in the International Classification of Diseases-Eleventh version: A review of the changes, their basis, and usefulness.World journal of psychiatry · 2022Review
- What does "Sexual" mean in compulsive sexual behavior disorder? •.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2022Article
- The ICD-11 is now officially in effect.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- ICD-11-related educational activities.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2021Article
- Classification of psychiatric symptoms using deep interaction networks: the CASPIAN-IV study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Is Compulsive Sexual Behavior Different in Women Compared to Men?Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Development of the new CPTSD diagnosis for ICD-11.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2021Review
- Complex PTSD: what is the clinical utility of the diagnosis?European journal of psychotraumatology · 2021Review
- The new International Classification of Diseases 11th edition: a comparative analysis with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Changes from ICD-10 to ICD-11 and future directions in psychiatric classification .Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this web-based field study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 10 selected mental disorders between the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) and the ICD-10 CDDG using vignettes in a sample of 928 health professionals from all WHO regions. On average, the ICD-11 CDDG displayed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (71.9% for ICD-11, 53.2% for ICD-10), higher ease of use, better goodness of fit, higher clarity, and lower time required for diagnosis compared to the ICD-10 CDDG. The advantages of the ICD-11 CDDG were largely limited to new diagnoses in ICD-11. After limiting analyses to diagnoses existing in ICD-11 and ICD-10, the ICD-11 CDDG were only superior in ease of use. The ICD-11 CDDG were not inferior in diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to the ICD-10 CDDG for any of the vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent across WHO regions and independent of participants' clinical experience. There were no differences between medical doctors and psychologists in diagnostic accuracy, but members of other health professions had greater difficulties in determining correct diagnoses based on the ICD-11 CDDG. In sum, there were no differences in diagnostic accuracy for diagnoses existing in ICD-10 and ICD-11, but the introduction of new diagnoses in ICD-11 has improved the diagnostic classification of some clinical presentations. The favourable clinical utility ratings of the ICD-11 CDDG give reason to expect a positive evaluation by health professionals in the implementation phase of ICD-11. Yet, training in ICD-11 is needed to further enhance the diagnostic accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31654119What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.