DSM-III diagnoses in XXXX . Confusion or clarity?

@entity1 @entity1314 @entity308 @entity14256 @entity148 @entity2531 @entity158 @entity74 @entity2270 @entity3119 @entity13299 @entity1118 @entity734
The assessment of @entity1 with @entity1118 is receiving increasing attention by psychiatrists. Recent publications have put forward the concept of the " @entity2531 " as a variant of @entity308 . This study describes a series of 50 consecutive @entity1 with @entity1118 in terms of the five axes of the DSM-III nosology. Diagnoses were made after a 90- to 120-minute psychiatric interview, and a check on diagnostic reliability was made on a small subsample. Psychological factors affecting physical condition were diagnosed in 34% and @entity14256 was diagnosed in 28%, while major @entity308 , @entity2531 , @entity2531 , and @entity148 were each respectively diagnosed in 8%. Only 6% had no diagnosis on @entity2270 I and 4% had no diagnosis on @entity2270 III. @entity1314 was diagnosed in 40%, and traits of @entity734 , @entity3119 , and @entity148 were common. Overall, the @entity1 had experienced a high degree of psychosocial stress with fair to poor adaptive functioning. The notion of @entity1118 as a variant of @entity308 is questioned on the basis of these findings. The author suggests that although @entity158 is a useful psychodynamic concept, the case for its establishment as a new @entity74 is not proven. Furthermore, the concepts of @entity158 , and @entity158 have become confused. The author argues that the current classification is adequate to deal with the varieties of @entity308 associated with @entity1118 and that @entity2531 should be remerged with @entity13299 for the sake of clarity.
