Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T18:10:35.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Are DSM and logic not on good terms?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Peter Dome*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Semmelweis University, Budapest, and National Institute of Psychiatry and Addictions, Budapest
Zoltan Demeter
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Semmelweis University, Budapest
Xenia Gonda
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Semmelweis University, Budapest, National Institute of Psychiatry and Addictions, Budapest, and MTA-SE Neuropsychopharmacology and Neurochemistry Research Group, Budapest
Zoltan Rihmer
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Theoretical Mental Health, Semmelweis University, Budapest, and National Institute of Psychiatry and Addictions, Budapest, Hungary
*
Peter Dome, Semmelweis University, Kútvölgyi út 4, Budapest H-1125, Hungary. Email: dome_peter@yahoo.co.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We would like to draw attention to the fact that the recently published DSM-5 (and also its predecessor, DSM-IV) contains annoying errors that are mainly logical in nature. These mistakes are undoubtedly a result of inadvertence, rather than either conceptual (professional) disagreements between authors/editors or shortage of scientific data for appropriate circumscription of diagnostic categories. The good news is that since these errors are mainly logical ones, they can be recognised and repaired.

Information

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2015 

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.