Catatonia in DSM 5: Controversies regarding its psychopathology, Clinical presentation and treatment response | Katatónia: Ellentmondások a pszichopatológiával, Klinikai megnyilvánulással és a kezelésre adott válasszal kapcsolatban

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    © 2014, Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology. All rights reserved. Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge of interest in catatonia, which is reflected in the attention it received in DSM 5, where it appears as a separate subsection of the Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders (APA, 2013). This commentary argues that due to the lack of solid scientific evidence, the extended coverage of catatonia in DSM 5 was a premature, and consequently, a necessarily ambiguous decision. The psychopathological foundations of the modern catatonia concept are lacking therefore its boundaries are fuzzy. There are only a few, methodologically sound clinical, treatment response and small-scale neurobiological studies. The widely recommended use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of catatonia is based on case reports and open-label studies instead of placebo-controlled, randomized trials. In conclusion, the catatonic concept espoused by DSM 5 is necessarily vague reflecting the current state of knowledge.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)189-194
    JournalNeuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica
    Volume16
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    Catatonia
    Psychopathology
    Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders
    Psychopharmacology
    Therapeutics
    Benzodiazepines
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Placebos

    Cite this

    @article{cad085cf734a4ff38e1f48096bac5692,
    title = "Catatonia in DSM 5: Controversies regarding its psychopathology, Clinical presentation and treatment response | Katat{\'o}nia: Ellentmond{\'a}sok a pszichopatol{\'o}gi{\'a}val, Klinikai megnyilv{\'a}nul{\'a}ssal {\'e}s a kezel{\'e}sre adott v{\'a}lasszal kapcsolatban",
    abstract = "{\circledC} 2014, Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology. All rights reserved. Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge of interest in catatonia, which is reflected in the attention it received in DSM 5, where it appears as a separate subsection of the Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders (APA, 2013). This commentary argues that due to the lack of solid scientific evidence, the extended coverage of catatonia in DSM 5 was a premature, and consequently, a necessarily ambiguous decision. The psychopathological foundations of the modern catatonia concept are lacking therefore its boundaries are fuzzy. There are only a few, methodologically sound clinical, treatment response and small-scale neurobiological studies. The widely recommended use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of catatonia is based on case reports and open-label studies instead of placebo-controlled, randomized trials. In conclusion, the catatonic concept espoused by DSM 5 is necessarily vague reflecting the current state of knowledge.",
    author = "Gabor Ungv{\'a}ri",
    year = "2014",
    language = "English",
    volume = "16",
    pages = "189--194",
    journal = "Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica",
    issn = "1419-8711",
    publisher = "Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Catatonia in DSM 5: Controversies regarding its psychopathology, Clinical presentation and treatment response | Katatónia: Ellentmondások a pszichopatológiával, Klinikai megnyilvánulással és a kezelésre adott válasszal kapcsolatban

    AU - Ungvári, Gabor

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - © 2014, Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology. All rights reserved. Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge of interest in catatonia, which is reflected in the attention it received in DSM 5, where it appears as a separate subsection of the Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders (APA, 2013). This commentary argues that due to the lack of solid scientific evidence, the extended coverage of catatonia in DSM 5 was a premature, and consequently, a necessarily ambiguous decision. The psychopathological foundations of the modern catatonia concept are lacking therefore its boundaries are fuzzy. There are only a few, methodologically sound clinical, treatment response and small-scale neurobiological studies. The widely recommended use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of catatonia is based on case reports and open-label studies instead of placebo-controlled, randomized trials. In conclusion, the catatonic concept espoused by DSM 5 is necessarily vague reflecting the current state of knowledge.

    AB - © 2014, Hungarian Association of Psychopharmacology. All rights reserved. Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge of interest in catatonia, which is reflected in the attention it received in DSM 5, where it appears as a separate subsection of the Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders (APA, 2013). This commentary argues that due to the lack of solid scientific evidence, the extended coverage of catatonia in DSM 5 was a premature, and consequently, a necessarily ambiguous decision. The psychopathological foundations of the modern catatonia concept are lacking therefore its boundaries are fuzzy. There are only a few, methodologically sound clinical, treatment response and small-scale neurobiological studies. The widely recommended use of benzodiazepines for the treatment of catatonia is based on case reports and open-label studies instead of placebo-controlled, randomized trials. In conclusion, the catatonic concept espoused by DSM 5 is necessarily vague reflecting the current state of knowledge.

    M3 - Review article

    VL - 16

    SP - 189

    EP - 194

    JO - Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica

    JF - Neuropsychopharmacologia Hungarica

    SN - 1419-8711

    IS - 4

    ER -